Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:13:36 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #103
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, March 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 103



=======================================================================
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: Piant in bedliner. [Jon Rishell ]
distributer nightmare [Dave Send ]
Brakes Stick When Wet ["Chapman, David P" ]
Brakes [John Cassis ]
Trade [John Cassis ]
BEd-liners [Stephen Hansen ]
RE: BEd-liners ["Chadlyr" ]
Re: distributer nightmare [Filip M Gieszczykiewicz ]
Re: F-150 -- FORD 460 ["Dave Resch" ]
85 F250 Diesel Tach ["Mike Miller" ]
Re: F-150 -- FORD 460 [Chris Hedemark ]
1998 Ranger gas tank? ["S. HALL" ]
Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank? [Chris Hedemark ]
Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank? [Filip M Gieszczykiewicz ]
Modifications -- F-150 / 460 [Daniel R McDonald ]
Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank? [Ken Payne ]
Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank? [Chris Hedemark ]
Re: Modifications -- F-150 / 460 [Chris Hedemark ]
RE: 1998 Ranger gas tank? ["Rio, Tony" ]
RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460 ["Rio, Tony" ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:07:54 +0000
From: Jon Rishell
Subject: Re: Piant in bedliner.

Dave,
I have sprayed my bed with a couple cans of spray lithium grease
before installing the liner, and about once a year, you should remove
the liner, clean
the bed real well, coat it with grease and reinstall. I do this and my
bed has lasted twelve years with no rust, only a little spray paint on
the inside of the bed where I did get a little paint rubbing.
hope this helps.
Jon

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:08:02 EST
From: Dave Send
Subject: distributer nightmare

Hi,
I have an 89 Bronco (full size) with a 351 engine. I have just had a new
oil pump, and a cam shaft put in it and no less than 3 distributers!! Right
now, it is sitting in my driveway again because the same thing keeps
happening. The gear on the distributer shaft keeps getting chewed up,
causing me to break down. This is why the oil pump and cam shaft were
replaced, now its happened again. Anyone out there have an idea as to whats
going on? I could really use some ideas on this. Thanks.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:28:21 -0500
From: "Chapman, David P"
Subject: Brakes Stick When Wet

On my 95 Bronco, which my wife mostly drives (I drive long distance to
work and run a diesel VW for economy, so she gets the Bronco), she says
the brakes tend to stick after the trucks been driven in wet weather or
when sitting outside on a rainy day. She notices it when releasing the
parking brake or when applying the brakes for the first time. Then it
disappears. She'll release the brake and when she tries to move the
truck, she hears a clunk as if the brake shoes just released. She backs
out, applies the brakes, shifts into gear and hears another clunk as she
moves forward. Then it stops. If the trucks been in the garage
overnight (i.e. -out of the wet weather) it doesn't happen. Has anyone
seen this before or have some insight?

Thanks in advance,
Dave C.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:50:41 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: Brakes

Dont know what it is, but my 93' 4x4 Ranger has done the same thing =
since it was new. Exactly the same situation though, only whenits been =
damp or raining out and it sticks the first couple of times and then =
thats it. Any one out there know how to correct it?

John Cassis

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:07:13 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: Trade

Casey,=20

Get an extra cab. I have the regular cab and my budy has the extra cab. =
His seats move back further than mine. He has much more leg room than I =
do. Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:46:23 -0600
From: Stephen Hansen
Subject: BEd-liners

Well, I have seen the damage that a plastic bed liner can cause, as well
as the fact that on the average they don't hold anything in place. There
is also the rare occasion that refilling gas cans on it can cause a
hazard due to the static charge that can develop. Another factor against
the use is that some of us have fifth wheel hitches, and then you have
to cut/drill through it to try to make it work. That is why over the
past years I have been watching the spray on liners being developed.
Ryno-liners seem to be the first, best, and priciest. Last I checked it
was around $700. I saw one in a truck and IT WAS SHARP! Speed-liner is
more in the price range of $400; and there are other brands, (check
Truckin'). The cost of these are more to those who have a nice newer
truck and who wants the best. My truck has 85,000 and looks great but as
I use the bed for a slide-in camper and other junk, I want something a
little cheaper and easier to repair. The low end options being the
"Dupli-color stuff" or equivalent, and this paint on type:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/cote-l/
I would like to here of those who have tried the alternatives and what
there opinions are, but I do plan to try the paint on type this summer
($225 for a full size bed). I feel that any type that bonds itself to
the bed is a way better choice than the plastic alternatives. In a
boating magazine it also suggested using the spray on types as a liner
inside the boat, or even better, to coat the trailer with it. Even on
camping trailers and fifth wheels the rock chips that appear could be
permanently prevented by using this type of coating, and most important
to all of us is LOOKS!
Just my .04 cents (hey, where's the cents button on this computer???)
Steve
92 F250
83 LTD II
50 F-1 (What's the difference between a garage and a shop? A garage has
running vehicles in it.)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:56:21 -0500
From: "Chadlyr"
Subject: RE: BEd-liners

I had a Rhino estimate for my truck about 6 months ago. The quoted price
for my full-size long bed and over the rail protection was about $450. I
have diamond plate on my rails currently and the aluminum corrosion seems to
be eating the clearcoat off the paint under the rails. So the over the
rails option will protect my bed rails from their diamond plate.

Do a search for bed liners on the internet, I remember finding one that
claimed to have alot more tensile strength than any other spray on liner out
there. I am going to at least check them out if not purchase from them...
Eventually.

Chad

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net
[mailto:owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net]On Behalf Of Stephen Hansen
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 11:46 AM
To: 80 up Truck
Subject: BEd-liners


Well, I have seen the damage that a plastic bed liner can cause, as well
as the fact that on the average they don't hold anything in place. There
is also the rare occasion that refilling gas cans on it can cause a
hazard due to the static charge that can develop. Another factor against
the use is that some of us have fifth wheel hitches, and then you have
to cut/drill through it to try to make it work. That is why over the
past years I have been watching the spray on liners being developed.
Ryno-liners seem to be the first, best, and priciest. Last I checked it
was around $700. I saw one in a truck and IT WAS SHARP! Speed-liner is
more in the price range of $400; and there are other brands, (check
Truckin'). The cost of these are more to those who have a nice newer
truck and who wants the best. My truck has 85,000 and looks great but as
I use the bed for a slide-in camper and other junk, I want something a
little cheaper and easier to repair. The low end options being the
"Dupli-color stuff" or equivalent, and this paint on type:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/cote-l/
I would like to here of those who have tried the alternatives and what
there opinions are, but I do plan to try the paint on type this summer
($225 for a full size bed). I feel that any type that bonds itself to
the bed is a way better choice than the plastic alternatives. In a
boating magazine it also suggested using the spray on types as a liner
inside the boat, or even better, to coat the trailer with it. Even on
camping trailers and fifth wheels the rock chips that appear could be
permanently prevented by using this type of coating, and most important
to all of us is LOOKS!
Just my .04 cents (hey, where's the cents button on this computer???)
Steve
92 F250
83 LTD II
50 F-1 (What's the difference between a garage and a shop? A garage has
running vehicles in it.)




+--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996 ----------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:58:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Filip M Gieszczykiewicz
Subject: Re: distributer nightmare

You (Dave Send) wrote:
> I have an 89 Bronco (full size) with a 351 engine. I have just had a new
> oil pump, and a cam shaft put in it and no less than 3 distributers!! Right
> now, it is sitting in my driveway again because the same thing keeps
> happening. The gear on the distributer shaft keeps getting chewed up,
> causing me to break down. This is why the oil pump and cam shaft were
> replaced, now its happened again. Anyone out there have an idea as to whats
> going on? I could really use some ideas on this. Thanks.

Well, there really isn't much in there:


[~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
[ ]
[ distributor ]
\ /
||
||
-----||------
|| goes into the engine block
||
||
||
||
\\
======WWWW\\WWWW============
======WWWW\\WWWW==== cam shaft

Now, since you've had the cam shaft replaced (and I would hope the distributor
gear as well, that leaves:

1) The bearings/bushings IN the distributor are binding -> gear gets eaten
Q: Did you replace the distributor itself? Did you check bearings? Does
it spin freely? Are the lubrication holes plugged?
2) The distributor shaft is bent -> bearings bind -> gear eaten
Q: did you check if distributor shaft is true?
3) The cam/distributor gears are not compatible, defective, don't mash
correctly, or are not machined correctly.
Q: Did you test their mesh BEFORE installing them?

You should have a good mechanic look at the "chewed" gears... that will be
the best way to diagnose all these things. Or you're going to have to
describe exactly how it's getting "chewed".

Take care.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:07:20 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460

>From: "Chris Hedemark"
>Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460
>
>> I have a 1987 F-150 with a straight-six. I was looking for
>>a little more power and was wondering how a 460 would fit.
>>Any ideas? If that's a tad big, how about a 351C or 351W.
>
>You ready for the good news? This was available as a
>factory option so you won't have to fabricate anything!!!

Yo Chris, Daniel, et al:

This is true for the 460. You'll need the engine mounts, radiator,
bellhousing, clutch, etc. They are all factory parts, so they should be
easy to find, either at the dealer or the junkyard.

>You can also do a 351C or Windsor by using the 302 motor
>mounts. As for the exhaust manifolds you'll have to be
>more resourceful as these were not available from the
>factory (351M is very different from 351W but uses same
>heads as a 351C-2V).
The 351C will not work w/ 302 or I6 motor mounts. The 351C was never a
factory option in an F truck. The 351M was offered in F trucks from 1977
to 1983, and it would not work w/ your existing motor mounts. The 351W
will work w/ the 302 motor mounts (and maybe w/ the I6 mounts, but I'm not
familiar w/ I6 mounts). You probably wouldn't want a 351C or 351M if you
have any local emission testing requirements, since neither of these
engines will meet '87 model year emissions standards.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:30:58 -0800
From: "Mike Miller"
Subject: 85 F250 Diesel Tach

I just bought a 85 F250 XL diesel w Banks turbo, extended cab, 4x4. The tach
works intermittently, at best, and only when cold. It will jump around from
0 to about 2k for maybe the first 2 miles driven - then it just sits on 0.
Anyone seen this before or have any ideas? I suspect it is a mechanical
tach - is the cable expensive or hard to change?.
Can anyone recommend a good diesel shop in the Seattle area - southend
preferably.
With the limited slip 3.54 rear axle (G3), whats the max weight I can tow?
Thinking about an 8k lb travel trailer.

thanks,
mike

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:30:21 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460

Dave Resch wrote:

> The 351C will not work w/ 302 or I6 motor mounts. The 351C was never a
> factory option in an F truck.

True, it was never an option. But 351C bolts up the same as a
289/302/351W to motor mounts & bellhousing.

> The 351W will work w/ the 302 motor mounts (and maybe w/ the I6 mounts, but
> I'm not familiar w/ I6 mounts). You probably wouldn't want a 351C or 351M if
> you have any local emission testing requirements, since neither of these
> engines will meet '87 model year emissions standards.

Emissions requirements are indeed an issue in many places. However,
many of these old motors can be made to meet 1987 emissions standards in
many states. Some states are easier than others to get through.

In the case of the Cleveland, you can spend some time tuning it a bit
for emissions plus if you maintain the factory cats it is possible to
squeak through emissions testing in many states.

Here in NC it isn't too hard because the "Good Ol' Boy Network" is alive
and well. Without going into too many details lets just say that it
isn't unheard of for the sniffer probe to be accidentally placed on
another car/truck and the computer passes you with flying colors.
Pennsylvania works in much the same way.

You california guys have my pity though.

This conversation has been getting my brain working. The F250 I'm
getting, like I said, has a 302 in it already. I happen to have a
351C-4V in storage that needs a rebuild but was one helluva fun motor
until it swallowed a valve. Intentions were, and for now still are, to
procure a 460/C6 combination to transplant into the 87 F250. But,
considering how friendly a Cleveland swap would be into a truck that
already has a 302, I'm beginning to think about going that route.
Wonder if the factory 4 speed would hold up, though. If not I've got
the original toploader that the motor came with out of a 71 Mustang.
Heheheh. Also have a built C6 that is currently mated to the Cleveland
block (but then that is a little more work if I don't retain the stock
manual trans). If I do go the C6 route, what can I do in the way of
shifters that isn't too awkward? All the floor shifters that I've seen
so far were for cars so it would be awful awkward in a truck. Is it
tough to swap the steering column out of a truck that has an automatic
shifter in the column?

Are exhaust manifolds available to swap a 4V Cleveland into an 87 truck?

Also, very interesting note, I understand that someone out there is
making an EFI lower intake to mate the EFI system from a late model
mustang to a 4V Cleveland motor. This should further help to pass
emissions and enhance driveability. But I can't see laying out that
kind of $$$ at this stage of the game.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:48:06 -0700
From: "S. HALL"
Subject: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

First off, thanx for all the help on my questions concerning my
87 Ranger and my buddys 98 Ranger. If my tranny gets any worse David
I'll try out your idea. (I hope it doesn't come to that what with me
having a new engine -it better NOT have endplay on the cranckshaft ;-)
I think your probably right tho' -I believe it has to do with my new engine
mating differently to my tranny then my old one did. In the last couple days it seems to have gotten better -Maybe my clutch is "wearing in" to my new engine!
My question now concerns my buddys 98 Ranger: The salesman and brochure claim
he has a 19.5 gallon tank, but everytime he gases up (from EMPTY) it only holds
15.5 gallons. He has the XLT supercab 4X4 flareside -does the flareside decrease
the tank capacity or what gives? Also he has the 864A package and we found one
item my 87 has his 98 lacks: The (underhood) courtesy light. I've never seen a
Ranger without the courtesy light -did the factory guys fall asleep that day
or does Ford now require that you buy the 867A (luxury package) to get this light? Thanks again for all the help,

-Sam H.
(shall nmsu.edu)
(1987 Ranger XLT supercab 4X4)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:57:05 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

S. HALL wrote:

> My question now concerns my buddys 98 Ranger: The salesman and brochure claim
> he has a 19.5 gallon tank, but everytime he gases up (from EMPTY) it only holds
> 15.5 gallons. He has the XLT supercab 4X4 flareside -does the flareside decrease
> the tank capacity or what gives? Also he has the 864A package and we found one
> item my 87 has his 98 lacks: The (underhood) courtesy light. I've never seen a
> Ranger without the courtesy light -did the factory guys fall asleep that day
> or does Ford now require that you buy the 867A (luxury package) to get this light? Thanks again for all the help,

Regarding the underhood light, this is common of the kinds of shortcuts
that Ford has been taking lately with new vehicles. For example, my
1996 Mustang GT has an underhood light as well as several other
goodies. The 1998 SVT Cobra, at $4,000 more, does not have this (to
clarify, none of the 1998 Mustangs do). The clock on the dash was also
removed (now the dash pad on the 1998 Mustang has this glaring bare
spot). Now I know car companies love to cut corners, but it is getting
nuts when prices go up all the time and we lose handy features that are
replaced with nothing or more cup holders (what does a mustang need with
CUP HOLDERS anyway?????!?!?!?!?!)

Attribute it to increasing cheapness among the FoMoCo bean counters.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:34:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Filip M Gieszczykiewicz
Subject: Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

You (Chris Hedemark) wrote:
> Regarding the underhood light, this is common of the kinds of shortcuts
> that Ford has been taking lately with new vehicles. For example, my

They prolly did a "survey" (hey, _some_ people run why presidencies that
way...) and they discovered that the average yuppie doesn't OPEN the
hood... so the light was deemed "obsolete" and it got chopped. Look
around the unwashed masses... how many of them even know what to do
under the hood? "Oil dipstick? What's that??? Wait, my cell-phone is
ringing..."

I put a nice, self-contained (ie. with a built-in pendulum switch) light
under the hood of my B2 for about $7 total... took about 10 minutes...
yes, it's fused ... If I had an OEM place to mount it, it would have taken
1.3 minutes... for a total assembly-line cost of $5 (figure they'd buy
10K of them lights at a time :-)

> 1996 Mustang GT has an underhood light as well as several other
> goodies. The 1998 SVT Cobra, at $4,000 more, does not have this (to
> clarify, none of the 1998 Mustangs do). The clock on the dash was also
> removed (now the dash pad on the 1998 Mustang has this glaring bare
> spot). Now I know car companies love to cut corners, but it is getting
> nuts when prices go up all the time and we lose handy features that are
> replaced with nothing or more cup holders (what does a mustang need with
> CUP HOLDERS anyway?????!?!?!?!?!)

It's for holding coffee cup, the cell phone and the message pad and the
nail-file.

Yes, that was low... and I stand behind it :-) I almost got rammed up
the butt by some yuppie 40s woman in a "next model year" Mustang GT
who was talking on the phone... $#$%&! Gotta thank God for those wide
tires and ABS... or my ass ould have been history...

Yeah, I know what you mean. A Mustang was something a "guy" would buy
and maintain and drive for the enjoyment of it... no longer, it's just
a yuppie-mobile now. So sad.

That's one of the good (??) things about a Bronco II... they discontinued
it before the yuppie-era and it's a good feeling to know that next time
you see someone in a B2, they will NOT be a yuppie. Thank God!

Take care.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:35:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Daniel R McDonald
Subject: Modifications -- F-150 / 460

Chris,

So a 460 will fit right in with no fabricated parts and will bolt
up to my current 4-speed tranny? Assuming the motor does mate up, all I
would need is radiator and motor mounts. I have dual tanks with electric
fuel pumps. Would it be easier to install a EFI or a carb 460? I was
thinking that I could use the electric fuel pumps along with the manual
pump if I chose a carb 460. Any ideas on the subject are much appreciated.



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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:41:41 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

At 12:34 PM 3/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
>You (Chris Hedemark) wrote:
>> Regarding the underhood light, this is common of the kinds of shortcuts
>> that Ford has been taking lately with new vehicles. For example, my
>
>They prolly did a "survey" (hey, _some_ people run why presidencies that
>way...) and they discovered that the average yuppie doesn't OPEN the
>hood... so the light was deemed "obsolete" and it got chopped. Look
>around the unwashed masses... how many of them even know what to do
>under the hood? "Oil dipstick? What's that??? Wait, my cell-phone is
>ringing..."

Or maybe they figured people could bring flash lights along. I always,
carry a flash light, jumper cables and a small tool kit. Rarely had
any use for them but its good insurance.

- -snip-

>Yeah, I know what you mean. A Mustang was something a "guy" would buy
>and maintain and drive for the enjoyment of it... no longer, it's just
>a yuppie-mobile now. So sad.

Not really true. Mustangs were the first car Ford aggressively
marketed towards women. And with modern 'Stangs there's a huge
performance aftermarket. People really hop them up, at least
around here. True, many people buy a GT and never intend to open
the hood. But many also buy the cars to tweak them. Join the
Fordnatics or Mustang email lists and you'll see that the hobby
is alive and kicking.

Ken

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:48:31 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

Filip M Gieszczykiewicz wrote:

> It's for holding coffee cup, the cell phone and the message pad and the
> nail-file.

It always seems to end up that way when my wife borrows it.

> Yes, that was low... and I stand behind it :-) I almost got rammed up
> the butt by some yuppie 40s woman in a "next model year" Mustang GT
> who was talking on the phone... $#$%&! Gotta thank God for those wide
> tires and ABS... or my ass ould have been history...

Talking on a car phone while driving should be grounds for a good
thorough caning. It has approximately the same effects on driving
skills as a six pack.

> Yeah, I know what you mean. A Mustang was something a "guy" would buy
> and maintain and drive for the enjoyment of it... no longer, it's just
> a yuppie-mobile now. So sad.

Yes I bought this car thinking that it reminded me in many ways of my
old 1971 & 1972 Mustangs, but the magic has been fading. Every time I
want to squeak more HP out of the new modular engine I find out how much
it's going to cost me and then I have to check my pants. If this is the
future of automobile technology, then please leave me in the past a
while longer.

This is why wifie-pooh is getting the Mustang and I'm getting an F250
for myself. I've had several Ford trucks in the past and they were much
more "wrench friendly" than the new Mustang.

> That's one of the good (??) things about a Bronco II... they discontinued
> it before the yuppie-era and it's a good feeling to know that next time
> you see someone in a B2, they will NOT be a yuppie. Thank God!

It's gotten to where there are only a small handful of capable 4x4's
left anymore. I knew that the end was near when Ford discontinued the
Bronco and replaced it with the Expedition (read- all wheel drive van
with absolutely no offroad capability... but hey it's got more
cupholders than the competition!)

I think it is time that we, the few remaining men on this earth that
change their own oil, make a solemn vow to not buy a new vehicle again
until they stop including cup holders.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:53:42 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: Modifications -- F-150 / 460

Daniel R McDonald wrote:

> So a 460 will fit right in with no fabricated parts and will bolt
> up to my current 4-speed tranny? Assuming the motor does mate up, all I
> would need is radiator and motor mounts. I have dual tanks with electric
> fuel pumps. Would it be easier to install a EFI or a carb 460? I was
> thinking that I could use the electric fuel pumps along with the manual
> pump if I chose a carb 460. Any ideas on the subject are much appreciated.


Whoah let's not jump to conclusions. I don't know if it will bolt up to
your tranny or not. What I was saying is that you could get a 460 from
the factory as an option, so all of the parts to put a 460 in an 87
fullsize are Ford factory parts and should be available through Ford
and/or salvage yards. In my case, with a 302, I highly doubt that a 460
will just mate up. I will almost certainly need a bellhousing at the
minimum, and possible more to it than that just to get the tranny to
mate. No, if I do the 460 route I will try to get a C6 with it so I
don't have to worry about that.

Radiator is a must.

Again, I don't know what you are going to need in the way of motor
mounts. Didn't your say you had a 351M??

Whatever route I go, it will almost certainly be carb'd unless I get a
sweet deal on an EFI 460.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:59:53 -0600
From: "Rio, Tony"
Subject: RE: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

I can handle the Yuppies, it's the 17 year olds in their
mom-and-dad-bought-me-it mustangs. Around here (Chicago) they're like
annoying buzzing flies on the expressways.

Three months ago while I was in the center lane I had a kid in a red
mustang try to cut me off. He zipped in front of me (I was doing about
60) and he cut it too close. The right side of the front bumper on my
F150 just caught his drivers rear wheel, and stripped it completely off.
He lost control and spun it into the center median wall.

I pulled over, called the cops, and of course the kid starts yelling
about how I rammed him! When Officer Friendly got there, the kid start
yelling at her how it was all my fault. The cop looked at his smashed
car, (and the missing rear tire) looked at my truck, (which had a big
chunk of that same tire stuck under the front bumper) and told the kid
to sit down and keep quiet 'cause she could see exactly what happened.
Of course the 4 witnesses that stopped and told her how he was doing
about 80 weaving through rush hour traffic didn't help his case any.
When he continued to protest she looked at his license again, looked at
her watch and said "Hmm, 10 am on a Tuesday, and you're 17? Why aren't
you in school?"

Yes, the Illinois State Patrol will arrest for truancy.

Lucily no one was hurt, but I weep for the future.

That's why you buy a truck!

Tony Rio
Allstate Enterprise Help Center
PRC Analyst \ Integration Owner
Trio1 Allstate.com
(W) 847.402.9386


> -----Original Message-----
> From:Filip M Gieszczykiewicz [SMTP:fordtrucks80up ListService.net]
> Sent:Friday, March 20, 1998 12:34 PM
> To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net; filipg paranoia.com
> Subject:Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?
>
> You (Chris Hedemark) wrote:
> > Regarding the underhood light, this is common of the kinds of
> shortcuts
> > that Ford has been taking lately with new vehicles. For example, my
>
> They prolly did a "survey" (hey, _some_ people run why presidencies
> that
> way...) and they discovered that the average yuppie doesn't OPEN the
> hood... so the light was deemed "obsolete" and it got chopped. Look
> around the unwashed masses... how many of them even know what to do
> under the hood? "Oil dipstick? What's that??? Wait, my cell-phone is
> ringing..."
>
> I put a nice, self-contained (ie. with a built-in pendulum switch)
> light
> under the hood of my B2 for about $7 total... took about 10 minutes...
> yes, it's fused ... If I had an OEM place to mount it, it would have
> taken
> 1.3 minutes... for a total assembly-line cost of $5 (figure they'd buy
> 10K of them lights at a time :-)
>
> > 1996 Mustang GT has an underhood light as well as several other
> > goodies. The 1998 SVT Cobra, at $4,000 more, does not have this (to
> > clarify, none of the 1998 Mustangs do). The clock on the dash was
> also
> > removed (now the dash pad on the 1998 Mustang has this glaring bare
> > spot). Now I know car companies love to cut corners, but it is
> getting
> > nuts when prices go up all the time and we lose handy features that
> are
> > replaced with nothing or more cup holders (what does a mustang need
> with
> > CUP HOLDERS anyway?????!?!?!?!?!)
>
> It's for holding coffee cup, the cell phone and the message pad and
> the
> nail-file.
>
> Yes, that was low... and I stand behind it :-) I almost got rammed up
> the butt by some yuppie 40s woman in a "next model year" Mustang GT
> who was talking on the phone... $#$%&! Gotta thank God for those wide
> tires and ABS... or my ass ould have been history...
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean. A Mustang was something a "guy" would buy
> and maintain and drive for the enjoyment of it... no longer, it's just
> a yuppie-mobile now. So sad.
>
> That's one of the good (??) things about a Bronco II... they
> discontinued
> it before the yuppie-era and it's a good feeling to know that next
> time
> you see someone in a B2, they will NOT be a yuppie. Thank God!
>
> Take care.
> +--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996
> ----------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
> |
> | List removal instructions on the website.
> |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
> -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:13:28 -0600
From: "Rio, Tony"
Subject: RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460

Just out of curiosity... When you put a bigger engine in, what do you
need to do to the tranny? I have never done an engine swap and am
curious if the tranny needs to be "upgraded" somehow?

For example, I have an Inline 6. If I were to pull it out and put in,
say a V8, would the new engine apply more torque to the transmission
than the I6 did and screw up the tranny? Would you have to rebuild the
tranny with "better" gears that could handle the increased engine
power...

Just curious... always trying to learn.

Tony Rio
Allstate Enterprise Help Center
PRC Analyst \ Integration Owner
Trio1 Allstate.com
(W) 847.402.9386


> -----Original Message-----
> From:Chris Hedemark [SMTP:fordtrucks80up ListService.net]
> Sent:Friday, March 20, 1998 12:53 PM
> To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net; chris yonderway.com
> Subject:Re: Modifications -- F-150 / 460
>
> Daniel R McDonald wrote:
>
> > So a 460 will fit right in with no fabricated parts and will
> bolt
> > up to my current 4-speed tranny? Assuming the motor does mate up,
> all I
> > would need is radiator and motor mounts. I have dual tanks with
> electric
> > fuel pumps. Would it be easier to install a EFI or a carb 460? I was
> > thinking that I could use the electric fuel pumps along with the
> manual
> > pump if I chose a carb 460. Any ideas on the subject are much
> appreciated.
>
>
> Whoah let's not jump to conclusions. I don't know if it will bolt up
> to
> your tranny or not. What I was saying is that you could get a 460....

---

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.