fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, February 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 052



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996 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: 1999 F-SD info [Natedog199 aol.com]
enough ["Casey Vandor" ]
radio ["Casey Vandor" ]
Re: Radio ["David J. Baldwin" ]
RE:MSDS ["Posluszny, Walt (posl)" ]
Re: 1999 F-SD info ["Lee" ]
Snake Oil Rebuttal - Part I ["Dave Resch"]
Re: Subject: Poping Noise [Gary Callahan ]
Re: '91 Big Bronco - Takes forever to fill. [Gary Callahan
Re: Subject: Poping Noise [ACMERCG aol.com]
fordtrucks80up-digest [Typhoon918 aol.com]
Re: 302 power [Randall Wer ]
Re: radio [Randy ]
Re: 98' Truck & Correction - [Randy ]
Re: Auto hub popping noise ["Jram" ]
Re: ADMIN: Jeff Bien --> outta here [johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)]
Re: 302 power [ACMERCG aol.com]
Re: 1999 F-SD info [Natedog199 aol.com]
7.3L diesel engines "cavitation" [zeb utalk.org (Lamar Zabielski)]
3.0 mileage "flaming" [rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)]
RE: Lifts [Mitch Biarsky ]
Re: Brain burp...dualies [Midwest96 aol.com]
Mr. Bien (or is it Mr. Bean?) Are You still here? [Laura Schnur

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:13:17 EST
From: Natedog199 aol.com
Subject: Re: 1999 F-SD info

Does anyone know why my 1999 F350 powerstroke is being held by Ford.
The dealer has been told by Ford that there is a Quality Control problem. It
was
supposed to be delivered on the 26 of January. Now they say it will be the end
of
February. I'm driving my sisters Probe for god's sake!!!! I want my truck.
Has anyone else heard anything?????? Ford is now on my s #t list.
Please respond if you now why or anyother info.
Thanks
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:09:38 -0900
From: "Casey Vandor"
Subject: enough

I believew you arleady pointed out the miracle engine treatment to me, once
was enough, thankyou.
Casey

>>Paste>>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:10:11 EST
From: JBien45204 aol.com
Subject: Re: be thankful it's only $30.00

Hey Casey
I think you are missing the cost/treatment? 1mL treats 1 gal. A quart
treats
1000 gal. so you need to do the math figuring an increase in fuel economy
of
say 20%. That's 200 gal. saved by using a quart of SUPER 21. If the cost
of
fuel is averaged out across the country, you'd find it is about $1.40 gal.
200 times 1.40 is $280. If the retail price of the quart is SUPER 21 is
$160,
that is about $120 isn't it? Nearly twice the cost!

So, the tailwind doesn't need to be quite 200 mph!

Besides, a 200 mph tailwind will put you past all the rest stops!!

Kind Regards,
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, 6 Feb 1998 15:12:29 -0900
From: "Casey Vandor"
Subject: radio

No it isn't stock. Stock was an AM and I put in a AM/FM Cassette, I
already moved the ground to a differnet spot, but did somebody out there
mention a ground all the way to the battery? I haven't done that yet.
Casey

>>>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:19:38 EST
From: Heater6ix9 aol.com
Subject: Re: Radio

sorry i didnt get in this conversation from the start, but is this a stock
radio? if its not then the easiest solution to get rid of altenator whine
is
to move your ground wire.....


+-------------- 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 18:25:21 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Radio

Casey Vandor wrote:

> Well I unhooked the alternator and ran the radio with the truck on and it
> is crystal clear. Problem is I can't find what I need to put in the system
> to block it out. Any suggestion on how to eliminate noise from the
> alternator?
> Casey

This is good! So, it's not ignition noise. There was another posting from
someone who suggested moving your ground wire...but not specifying where.

Grounding is critical, and especially on older vehicles, sometimes poorly
connected. Older vehicles just had a ground cable the went to the engine
block. In this configuration, the electrical ground return has to make
connection through motor mounts to the chassis, etc. After a few years of rust
takes its toll, the ground path is degraded, and then you start having noise
problems.

Have you cleaned your battery posts and put in new battery cables yet? The
battery makes the best "filter" for this noise that you can have. These
connections are your electrical "anchor" for the entire system. If these
connections are poor, your alternator will pump noise all over your system.

If you do this and still have noise, moving the ground connection for the radio
to a lower-resistance path to the battery negative terminal will help.

The only thing to fear is that if the chassis has a poor connection, and the
radio case is internally connected to the ground wire coming from the unit, you
will provide a new lower-resistance path to ground for everything else in the
car with a chassis ground return. You might get lots of amps flowing through
the radio ground, and that's not desirable. If you can, check to see if the
radio case is connected electrically to the ground lead coming out of it. I'm
assuming that you know how to do this. If you don't, just ask, and I'll try to
lead you through it.

Your best bet is to find a wire that has a continuous wire connection to the
battery, and not tie it off on the chassis. I'll try to remember to look at
how the chassis is connected on my truck. I'll let you know next week. Good
luck.

- --
Best Regards,

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


+-------------- 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 16:54:23 -0800
From: "Posluszny, Walt (posl)"
Subject: RE:MSDS

> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:31:03 -080
> 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.

I'm almost afraid to stick my head out into this thread, but here goes
anyway...

In all fairness(to anyone).....no MSDS sounds good. They all look like
Methyl Ethyl Death.

If there was one for water you be surprised at how bad it too would
look,

Walt

+-------------- 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 17:13:26 -0800
From: "Lee"
Subject: Re: 1999 F-SD info

I have a F250 V10 CrewCab that was suposedly going to arrive 2/23. Now it
is going to be 3/2. They said that Ford was hording them for a March
introduction.

- ----------
> From: Natedog199 aol.com
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: 1999 F-SD info
> Date: Friday, February 06, 1998 4:13 PM
>
> Does anyone know why my 1999 F350 powerstroke is being held by Ford.
> The dealer has been told by Ford that there is a Quality Control problem.
It
> was
> supposed to be delivered on the 26 of January. Now they say it will be
the end
> of
> February. I'm driving my sisters Probe for god's sake!!!! I want my
truck.
> Has anyone else heard anything?????? Ford is now on my s #t list.
> Please respond if you now why or anyother info.
> Thanks
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+
+-------------- 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 16:14:09 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Snake Oil Rebuttal - Part I

Yo Fellow Ford Truck Enthusiasts:

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 One:

>As a matter of fact, I own an '87 Ford Ranger 250.
I'm not familiar w/ this particular model.

Can anyone on the list enlighten me? Perhaps Mr. Bien has a one-of-a-kind
vehicle, and he is not just making this up to create a thin veneer of
respectability.

>> I am also assuming that you have some rational basis
>
>All claims are readily substantiated.

We shall see.

> Emotional, well yes!
>I've used it in both my Ford Ranger and a '92 Chevy Lumina
>Van and on the Chevy I went from 13 mpg to 22 mpg consistently.
>How can you keep emotion out of results like that? On the Ford, I
>went from 11 mpg to 18 mpg. In fact, it has continued to improve
>on the Ford incrementally...regarding the environment, well, it

I am wondering what engine Mr. Bien has in his "Ford Ranger" that got only
11 mpg, and I am also wondering about his obvious care and concern for the
environment that justifies him allowing a vehicle to be maintained so
poorly that it gets mileage that bad.

Unfortunately, if you can't keep your emotions out of it, you will never be
able to make an informed and rational decision about the efficacy or value
of a product. Moreover, when you can't keep your emotions out of the
discussion, you invite questions about yourself personally (such as your
motivations and veracity), and not just dispassionate questions about the
product and its value.

>doesn't matter whether you think I'm environmentally conscious
>anymore than I ask you about your religious beliefs...but I live in
>Houston, one of the most polluted cities in the U.S. I have three
>children. I really don't care to leave a legacy of pollution to my
>children anymore than you would care to subject your children
>to second hand smoke. So anyway...
Pardon me, Mr. Bien, but I don't want to leave a legacy of Stupidity to my
children, which is one of the reasons why I am questioning the legitimacy
of Your bizarre claims for the effectiveness of this product. The only
rational basis I can detect so far is a belief in your own experience,
which is mere anecdotal evidence. Most of what I see so far is another
shameless (and factless) emotional appeal.

>>>enhances and regulates your engine's combustion resulting in
>>>more power and reduced fuel consumption.
>>
>> Can you explain exactly how this product "enhances and
>> regulates your engine's combustion?"
>>
>It uses water micro-emulsion. Are you familiar with water injection
>systems?
Yes, I am. Are you? All this discussion of water injection is completely
irrelevant. Here's why:

Water injection has been well researched for many years, and there are
several reasons why it has been abandoned for automotive use, even by
racers who are always looking for every possible power/efficiency advantage
that is technologically feasible. The main reasons it is not used today in
mass production automotive engines is that it increases exhaust emissions
of hydrocarbons (because the fuel cannot burn as efficiently when oxygen is
displaced by water in the combustion chamber) and it increases fuel
consumption. These results are well know among automotive engineers and
there have been numerous papers written on this subject by members of the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

>They've been around for about 80 years or so. The first farm
>tractors used them to power up the tractor or to take a run up hills.

The "first" tractors you refer to also used a manual, variable ignition
timing. Water injection was used only when the ignition timing was
overadvanced to produce more power. Without overadvanced ignition timing,
there is no use for water injection.

> In WWII, the old P-51Mustangs had them so that if a pilot was in
>a dogfight and wanted to get the heck out of dodge or similar
>speed necessities, or needed to fly back to the base on fumes,
>he'd punch in the water injection. You can still retrofit your car with

In aircraft engines, water injection was used only on take off and for very
brief "emergency" power needs. These engines were specially designed to
take advantage of water injection and they incorporated a number of other
features that worked together w/ water injection, including variable
ignition timing and variable boost superchargers. Without those items,
especially the variable boost superchargers, the water injection would be
useless. When it was used, water injection dramatically increased fuel
consumption, so no pilot would dare use it if he was concerned about
getting back to base w/ limited fuel!

> water injection now, but it would cost you somewhere in the
>neighborhood of $6-8k to do it and you would void your warranties,
>have corrosion problems (since this is FREE water that can interact
>with the metal), and well, if you lived in Minnesota, January and
>February are a helluva time of year for having fuel line freeze ups!
Again, Mr. Bien displays his misunderstanding of water injection. There is
no water in the fuel lines, unless you have a problem with water in the
fuel tank. Aircraft water injection systems use a mixture of methanol and
water to avoid freezing at very low temperatures at high altitude. The
water is injected at the cylinder intake port, not upstream where it would
be mixed w/ the fuel.

>The oil companies worked to find a solution that would literally
>allow one to mix water with oil and I'm sure you've heard that term
>before: "Water and Oil JUST DON"T MIX!" Well, that is exactly
>what micro-emulsion has accomplished.

Aha! Now we have arrived at the meat of the claims for this product.

>Water micro-emulsion basically takes the naturally occuring
>detergents and breaks down the surface tension of the water.

Where does the water come from? On the corporate web site for the
distributors of this product, they claim the water occurs naturally in the
fuel. Frankly, if I found water in my fuel, I would buy from a different
gas station. Reasonably clean gasoline or diesel fuel should contain no
water. At any auto parts store, you can buy fuel antifreeze (95% isopropyl
alcohol) that absorbs any water in a fuel tank. Such water might occur in
the tank from condensation of humid air sucked into the tank through the
vent, but it is not a "normal" part of the fuel.

>These micro droplets are thus encased by the "detergent"
>type surfactants in small "water balloons" smaller than the
>wavelength of visible light.

Well, Mr. Bien, you've lost me there. A single water molecule is a bit
larger than the wavelength of light, so I don't understand how a "water
balloon" that consists of not only a water "micro droplet" but also one or
more molecules of some "detergent" type surfactant (each molecule of which
would be even larger than a water molecule) can be so small. Just how was
this miracle of modern chemistry accomplished?

>Since the water is "protected" in the surfactant membrane, it
>doesn't interact with the metals in the engine! Now, when these
>water droplets reach the combustion chamber, they begin to
>explode which complicates the combustion process by creating
>a significant increase in turbulence which increases fuel
>atomization and thus a more complete burn.

Again, years of research on water injection does not support this
explanation. Water injection is known to cause cooler combustion chamber
temperatures (which is thought to be its main benefit in permitting higher
boost without knocking in aviation engines), which in turn causes less
efficient combustion and thus increases hydrocarbon emissions.

>The larger water droplets also create a larger burning surface,
>so the effect is to slow down combustion and burn more of the
> fuel vapors. Larger burning surface, longer burn time, cooler
> burn!

What do the water droplets have to do with "burning surface?" The rest of
this claim is not consistent w/ known properties of water injection, as
stated above. At least Mr. Bien has the cooler burning part right, but
that is a detriment to efficiency, not an improvement.

End of Snake Oil Rebuttal -- Part I

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


+-------------- 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: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:51:04 -0800
From: Gary Callahan
Subject: Re: Subject: Poping Noise

Maybe you ran over a bunch of pidgeons and didn't realize it! Just
kidding! Don't all you Audubon members send me a ton of hate mail.

Gary Callahan
callah hninc.com
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:55:43 -0800
From: Gary Callahan
Subject: Re: '91 Big Bronco - Takes forever to fill.

On my '81 F-150 if I turn the nozzle so it lines up with the truck and
the hose pointing backwards along the side of the truck. Then I can
always fill-it-up at medium speed and sometimes at high speed.

Gary Callahan
callah hninc.com
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:00:58 EST
From: ACMERCG aol.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Poping Noise

In a message dated 98-02-06 20:52:41 EST, you write:


kidding! Don't all you Audubon members send me a ton of hate mail.
>>
? :o ;)
+-------------- 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 21:21:03 EST
From: Typhoon918 aol.com
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest

Subj: 80'-86' Interior / 86'-98' Nose (body parts) interchangable???
Date: 98-02-06 19:55:21 EST
From: Typhoon918
To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net

I need to know if 80-86 Bronco/Pickup interior dashboards are interchangable
and aslo if 86-98 Ford/Pickup noses are interchangable. I want to know if I
can put a nose from Fords 87 to 96 pickups onto an 86 Ford F350. If any one
has information I would appreciate your E-Mail.

Thanks,

Typhoon918 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 -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:28:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Randall Wer
Subject: Re: 302 power

I tried to post this once before, but I don't know if it worked. Anyway,
I have a 1990 ford F-250 4x4 with a 302, 5-speed, and a 3.55 rear end.
The power is ok at slow speeds, but very lacking on the highway. I was
wondering what kind of engine mods I could do cheaply that would be
effective. Also, what kind of exhaust systems are available that
would add some power, and sound good. Thanks in advance!

+-------------- 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 22:37:59 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: radio

Casey,
I must say you have alot more patience than I. I never would have
stood for that thing still buzzin'. If that meant shootin' it even.
Just kidding. Ok, there will be a slot on your fuse box marked "Bat"
or "Batt" for battery. This should be a clean, interference free
connction from the battery that bypasses all the other electronics,
therefore it SHOULDN'T cause any buzzing. Go to the local Radio Shack
store and by some spade connectors. These work great for slipping
onto the connector at the fuse box. Crimp it on the power lead from
the radio and plug it in there and see if that helps. If it does NOT,
and you are absolutely sure you have a solid ground, then the only
other option I see is run some 12ga wire straight to the battery. I
know you said you had sparks before, but you must have crossed
something somewhere and didn't know it. I have my amp power lead
coming straight from the battery and this assures me the clearest
sound the truck can provide. Sorry I haven't followed up on this
lately, I was away. Please let me know how it goes.
Later,
Randy

Casey Vandor wrote:
>
> No it isn't stock. Stock was an AM and I put in a AM/FM Cassette, I
> already moved the ground to a differnet spot, but did somebody out there
> mention a ground all the way to the battery? I haven't done that yet.
> Casey
>
> >>>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 20:19:38 EST
> From: Heater6ix9 aol.com
> Subject: Re: Radio
>
> sorry i didnt get in this conversation from the start, but is this a stock
> radio? if its not then the easiest solution to get rid of altenator whine
> is
> to move your ground wire.....
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 22:46:10 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: 98' Truck & Correction -

John Cassis wrote:
>
[snip]

> 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.

What about a huge socket?
+-------------- 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 20:43:29 -0600
From: "Jram"
Subject: Re: Auto hub popping noise

The only thing to eliminate the popping noise is to replace auto hubs with
manual. You might have to think ahead for manual hubs, but if you think
your going to get in the thick of things, lock the manual hubs and then just
engage the transfer case as needed. The manuals make no noise and are much
stronger.
Jram
'81 F-150 4x4
'94 F-150 2x4
'88 Lincoln MKVII

+-------------- 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 22:20:02 EST
From: johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Jeff Bien --> outta here

Way to go, Ken!!!!!

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

+-------------- 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 22:20:38 EST
From: ACMERCG aol.com
Subject: Re: 302 power

what size tires do you have? that might be your problem.
+-------------- 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 22:20:51 EST
From: Natedog199 aol.com
Subject: Re: 1999 F-SD info

I was in louisville,Ky today. I saw them loading the trucks and taking them
away.
There were somw V10's, and other V-8's, no powerstrokes. WHAT IS THE
DEAL?????????????
I want my truck!!!!
+-------------- 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 21:07:14 -0700 (MST)
From: zeb utalk.org (Lamar Zabielski)
Subject: 7.3L diesel engines "cavitation"

scan'd from a letter rcv'd today. previous owner must have filled out the
card mentioned, I've never dealt with Ford Motor Co.

zeb

ps anybody know what that id # says?
=====================================

Vehicle Service and Programs Ford Customer Service Division

88 F-250 Ford Truck Vehicle ID #: 1FTHX26MXJKA52262 98C01

L ZABIELSKI

Ford Motor Company
P.O. Box 1904
Dearborn. MI 48121-1904

January, 1998

Ford Motor Company is providing owners of certain vehicles equipped with
7.3L diesel engines with the following important information regarding the
cooling systems in their engines.

Concern:

Under certain circumstances, some 7.3L diesel engines may, without proper
maintenance, develop "cavitation" erosion in the cylinder wall of the
engines. This erosion could cause tiny holes to develop in the cylinder
wall, allowing coolant to leak through these holes into the engine. Such
leakage may damage or disable the engine.

What You Should Do:

To retard cavitation erosion, you should as soon as possible, add directly
to your vehicle's coolant two (2) pints of Motorcraft coolant additive
FW-15. This additive is effective in retarding the development of cavitation
in your vehicle's 7.3L diesel engine. In addition, you should add FW-15 to
your vehicle's coolant each time you change the coolant as suggested in the
maintenance schedule in your vehicle's Owner Guide.

Changed Address Or Sold The Truck?

Please fill out the enclosed prepaid postcard and mail it to us if you have
changed your address or sold the vehicle.

We are providing this information as part of our ongoing efforts to maintain
owner confidence in our products.

Ford Motor Company Vehicle Service and Programs


+-------------- 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 20:46:50 -0800
From: rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)
Subject: 3.0 mileage "flaming"

My post had nothing to do with "spam".It did have to do with a little
common courtesy.I saw the claims,(for what they were)and the personal
attack by the guy who made the claims.Also witnessed the ensuing feeding
frenzy,which the guy had coming.Then the apology.And still the feeding
frenzy.That was the point of my post.Sorry if you didn't see it that
way,and took further offense.In an open forum,opinions will vary.None
taken, Randy

















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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 00:44:17 -0500
From: Mitch Biarsky
Subject: RE: Lifts

> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:32:47 -0800
> From: Carie Kalliainen
> Subject: RE: Lifts
>
> I know I'm butting in and apologize but I need some advice.
>
> We own a F350 Powerstroke deisel 4 X 4 the front end sags I think
> around 2-3 inches lower then the back. we recently had extra leafs put
> in the front but it still sags 1 1/2 - 2 inches. Plus every time you
> hit a bump the springs snap together. These were professional
> installed. The company that did it said to drive it about a week and
> see if it stops. My husband actually got so fed up with it he put
> padding in between the springs to stop it until we can get it fixed.
> Last night in Four Wheeler Mag there was a write up about a "Shackle
> Reversal Kit" that is new from a company in CA called "Off Road
> Unlimited Source". It states that it will lift the front end 2 1/2
> inches and that it makes the steering tighter. Anyone know or have this
> unit install in their truck? What do you think about? We are thinking
> of asking the garage to take the leafs out and put this unit in. Any
> advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank You
> Carie K.
>
Carie,

Check out the following link. The info just went up tonight.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.abol.com/users/jlester/features/orukit.htm

Mitch

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 02:34:53 EST
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Brain burp...dualies

Josh,

So adding dualies increases the payload capacity of the truck, but decreases
the towing capacity, correct?

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 00:42:03 -0800
From: Laura Schnur
Subject: Mr. Bien (or is it Mr. Bean?) Are You still here?

Ken,
Thank you for finally putting a stop to this Bean guy. He might as well
be Mr. Bean. I was waiting for him to give the evidence!....


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.