Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:23:46 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #14
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, January 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 014



=======================================================================
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:Attn: Randy Robb [Daryl.Rue entex.com (daryl rue)]
Re: F350/7.3L/E40D [Bothwells ]
7.3 Diesel VS V10 Gas Operating Costs (Butch Davis) [JDavis1277
Re: Auto trans questions. ["Dave Resch"]
4R100 information [John Yee ]
99 front end was -Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #12 [John Yee
Re: 99 front axle [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Bug Deflectors [johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)]
97 exhaust location [johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)]
Re: F-150 Shocking, still. Etc..... [Midwest96 ]
Re: 99 front end [Keith Srb ]
RE: 97 exhaust location ["Stephen Barclay" ]
Parking Position (Transmissions) [Midwest96 ]
1-tons, diesel and winches [Nathaniel Ingersoll
Re: Parking Position (Transmissions) [alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)]
Carburator Problems??? [Mike Johnson ]
RE: Carburator Problems??? [Mike Marcum ]
Re: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97 [Midwest96 ]
Re: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97 [John Yee ]
Re[2]: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97 [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re: Re[2]: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97 [John Yee
Re: 99 front end [John Yee ]
Re: Invoices [John Turner ]
Re: Bug Deflectors [John Turner ]
Re: Bug Deflectors [bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)]
Re: 99 front end-monobeam [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: 89' F-150 [Todd M ]
Re: Parking Position (Transmissions) [Paul Laughlin

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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:00:27 -0500
From: Daryl.Rue entex.com (daryl rue)
Subject: Re:Attn: Randy Robb

I have a pricing sheet that a local dealership faxed to me, has all the models
and options.

I have been told that pricing is not in the computer yet, but you can order,
through the computer, and several dealerships have ordered some already.
Although the dealer I am dealing with says he wants to wait till the computers
are updated that way it can fix human errors, as far as equipment
compatabilities are concerned. Doesn't seem to jive with me.

Daryl

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:44:28 -0800
From: Bothwells
Subject: Re: F350/7.3L/E40D

Well, looks like we're back to tranny overhaul time again. The torque
converter seems to be giving problems - truck won't move in forward
gears until its warnmed up 10 mins-reverse is ok. Asked the local Ford
dealer for suggestions - his only idea is replace the E40D with a
rebuild. This truck pulls heavy loads of hay on a fifth wheel trailer
around the farm and locally, and we like an automatic for it. Someone
else suggested putting an Allison tranny in it - another idea was a
schoolbus transmission, which we are checking into. Has anyone else
replaced this transmission - any idea what modifications might be
required?

Still spinning our wheels with an F350
the Bothwells

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:21:37 EST
From: JDavis1277
Subject: 7.3 Diesel VS V10 Gas Operating Costs (Butch Davis)

The added cost of diesel engine oil changes is somewhat offset by reusing the
oil as fuel. Just pour the used oil into one of the fuel tanks or split it
between the two. If you recover only 10 quarts (2 1/2 gallons) you will save
about $3.00 in fuel cost with each change. The disposal issue is also
eliminated. This practice will not impact on warranty or emissions. One
Caution: Do not reuse oil which has been contaminated by coolant. This
cannot be safely done with gasoline engines, but is common practice in the
fleet diesel and marine business. Check with your local Racor dealer. OK,
now lets see how many flames this little gem generates.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:18:00 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Auto trans questions.

>From: "The Lublin Family"
>Subject: Auto trans questions.
>
>What is the difference between a C-4 transmission and
> a C-5 transmission? On the outside they look identical.

Yo Chris:

The C5 was merely a C4 with a lock-up torque convertor. That's why they
look identical. Use a non-lock-up torque convertor, and a C5 becomes a C4.
BTW, those lock-up convertors were a weak link in the design. AFAIK, C4
and C5 production overlapped. They were both available for a few years,
maybe not on the same vehicles. Sometime in the early '80s, they were
replaced by the AOD, first in cars, then in trucks. Don't know the exact
years.

I've never heard of a C7.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:27:51 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: 4R100 information

There's been an interesting thread on the newsgroup rec.outdoors.rv-travel
titled "Dodge tranny problems, questions." which has now diverted to
discussion about the 4R100 transmission.

There's also a great pointer to some testing/fleet trials on the
4R100.

- - john

>From a most recent post:

> > The new transmission is called 4R100. It replaced the E4OD.
> > It is not an all new transmission, it is an evolution of the E4OD.
> > 50% of the parts are new, and the torque capacity has been raised
> > to 1000 lb-ft AFTER the torque converter multiplication.

> Do you know if the 4R100 has gone through fleet trials, and how
> well it did?

Yes, it did. It also racked up A LOT of miles on proving grounds.

The 4R100 was also tested in off-road racing. Dave Ashley and Dan Smith of
Enduro Racing have raced an E4OD (4R100) to a class win in a 700 HP
Class 8 SCORE F150 the last few years.

See http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford.com/motorsport/2-6tech.html for more on this and other

off-road E4OD (4R100). The article doesn't mention 4R100 because it was
written before the 4R100 was announced to the public.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:41:50 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: 99 front end was -Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #12

At 09:52 PM 1/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm considering a 99 H.D. but need to know what kind of running gear,
>especially the front axle on a 4X4 they'll have. Differing rumors up
>here from a G.M. style independant to a solid axle. Dealers say "I
>think" this or that but no one seems to KNOW. Does any one out there
>know?

I can't tell you the axle type, but written material says:
2x4 for the F250/F350 are an improved twin I beam.
4x4 for the F250-F550 are of a monobeam construction.
2x4 for the F450/F550 are of a monobeam type construction.

These 2 sites probably have the best combined information on
the 99 trucks.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/
or
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/prod02.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/99-F-Series/f-series.html

- -john

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:53:03, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: 99 front axle

The 99 4x4 HD's will have a solid front axle. You can have a manual
or electric shift transfer case. The 4x2's will have the same twin I
beam as 97s.

Josh

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:18:35 EST
From: johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)
Subject: Bug Deflectors

I would like to hear from owners who have installed bug deflectors.
First, do they work as advertised? Secondly, which ones work the best?
Lastly, do the ones which are attached with sticky tape really stay on?

Thank-you,
John

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:24:56 EST
From: johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee)
Subject: 97 exhaust location

I've seen lots of postings about "green" right rear wheels as a result of
the exhaust pipe location. How long did it take for your tires to start
turning "green"? I've got 18000 miles and no "green" tires. I do rotate
every 6000 miles.

Thank-you,
John

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:25:03 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Re: F-150 Shocking, still. Etc.....

In a message dated 98-01-06 02:49:47 EST, you write:


that comes from the engine compartment when its real cold out ?

Thanks again !

Bob
Anchorage, Alaska
ascbh1 uaa.alaska.edu >>

Hey, sorry I took so long to reply, but I just wanted to point out that your
idea of very cold is probably a bit cooler than the rest of us

Craig

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:41:54 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: 99 front end

Monobeam?


Can somebody clue me into what a monobeam front end is??


later



At 10:41 AM 1/8/98 -0800, you wrote:

Original Message Starts Here

|At 09:52 PM 1/7/98 -0800, you wrote:

|>I'm considering a 99 H.D. but need to know what kind of running gear,

|>especially the front axle on a 4X4 they'll have. Differing rumors up

|>here from a G.M. style independant to a solid axle. Dealers say "I

|>think" this or that but no one seems to KNOW. Does any one out there

|>know?

|

|I can't tell you the axle type, but written material says:

|2x4 for the F250/F350 are an improved twin I beam.

|4x4 for the F250-F550 are of a monobeam construction.

|2x4 for the F450/F550 are of a monobeam type construction.

|

|These 2 sites probably have the best combined information on

|the 99 trucks.

|

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

|or

|http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/prod02.htm

|http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/99-F-Series/f-series.html

|

|-john

|

|+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+

|| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |

|| List removal instructions on the website. |

|+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

|

Original Message Ends Here

Keith Srbherbie netvalue.net

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:36:19 -0500
From: "Stephen Barclay"
Subject: RE: 97 exhaust location

I've seen lots of postings about "green" right rear wheels as a result of
the exhaust pipe location. How long did it take for your tires to start
turning "green"? I've got 18000 miles and no "green" tires. I do rotate
every 6000 miles.

I had to have my Passenger rear wheel center cap replaced, I believe that is
the problem that you are referring to. I bought my '97 F-150 in July 1996,
and I think it was replaced in about April of 1997. This has only been a
problem with the steel chrome and aluminum look alike center covers. The
plain steel and the high dollar aluminum didn't have this problem that I am
aware of. I think they were going to change the exhaust route for the '98's.
I did however get rid of the '97 F-150 and got a '97 F-250HD truck for
plowing so I don't have that problem any more

Regards,

Steve

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:43:16 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Parking Position (Transmissions)

In a message dated 98-01-06 12:58:34 EST, you write:


that it's a bad idea to get used to using the transmission as a parking
brake. If you get used to it, then you'll tend to use it all the time.
Like the time I had a U-joint on the point of failure and took it to
a shop for repair. The machanic could not find any slop in the joint,
and it wasn't until I had taken the time to drive back to his shop and
show him how to check it that he found out that you don't diagnose
driveline problems with the driveline loaded.
>>

Sorry, I've been gone for a couple of days, and I don't understand here:

If you're not supposed to use PARK on an automatic transmission, why do they
make it an option. If you're going to use the emergency brake, there would
only need to be the drive, reverse, and and neutral options. Does this also
mean that when I park my manual, I should leave it in neutral and use the
emergency brake? I was also under the impression that an *emergency* brake
was just that - for use in an emergency, ie brake failure. I was also
wondering if this was an opinion, because the service techs at my dealer
specifically told me to leave my manual in first when parking and not to use
the emergency brake to park the vehicle - it wasn't designed to hold the
vehicle, especially on in/declines. Was there an article on this somewhere.
Thanks,

Craig {Midwest96 aol.com}

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:14:08 -0800
From: Nathaniel Ingersoll
Subject: 1-tons, diesel and winches

I've got a '97 F350 4x4 crew-cab with the PS, and I have some thoughts
of putting a winch on the front. Not for serious off-roading, just
primarily that the beast is so big that I can imaging having to go
somewhat off-road to turn it around in some instances when in the
backcountry.

The question is, what is a good size winch? Warn makes 9000#, 10000#
and 12000#, the question is really between the 10k and the 12k.

FoMoCo rates the truck at 9200GWV (another question, quickly - why is
the 4x4 downrated from the 4x2? the running gear is included in the GWV
and shouldn't make a difference!), and I have a good-sized camper (ok,
big), a Bigfoot, which pretty much cleans out the payload capacity when
full - probably about 2500#. The empty weight of the truck is 6100#,
add in a couple of adults and three kids, total say 450# plus fuel etc.
Am I getting dangerous here?

While I'm asking lots of questions, any experiences with tire siping? I
have 33x12.5/16.5's all around, and they're doing ok in the light snow
here (Spokane, WA), but more traction is always welcome.


Any words of wisdom would be welcome.

Thanks,

N. Ingersoll
ningersoll packetengines.com

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:27:50 -0800
From: alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: Parking Position (Transmissions)

> If you're not supposed to use PARK on an automatic transmission,
> why do they make it an option. If you're going to use the emergency
> brake, there would only need to be the drive, reverse, and and
> neutral options.

I'm not saying you're not supposed to use the Park position - I'm
saying you should not rely on the Park position to hold your vehicle
stationary, especially on an incline. And we can argue semantics:
my vehicles all have PARKING brakes, not EMERGENCY brakes. The
parking brake is extremely inefficient when using it in an emergency
situation. And take a look at the Allison family of automatic
transmissions: you won't find a Park position on them.

> Does this also mean that when I park my manual, I should leave it
> in neutral and use the emergency brake?

While leaving it in neutral is unnecessary, using the parking brake
should be standard procedure. Relying on engine friction to hold
your car stationary leaves a lot to be desired.

Check the Vehicle Code for your state. California's Vehicle Code says:

" Unattended Vehicles

22515. (a) No person driving, or in control of, or in charge of, a
motor vehicle shall permit it to stand on any highway unattended
without first effectively setting the brakes thereon and stopping
the motor thereof."

While this doesn't apply to parking lots, driveways, front yards, etc.
it's clear that if your parking on a public street, California requires
you to set your brakes. Since you can't "set" your service brakes
without being within reaching distance of the brake pedal, the only way
to comply with this law is to apply the parking brake.

- ---

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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:09:38 -0500
From: Mike Johnson
Subject: Carburator Problems???

I read the problem that Mitch Biarsky
had with his '86 F250 w/351
on the fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, December 26 1997

Did he or anyone else figure out what could be causing the problem?

I have an 86 f150 with the 300 cid engine, with a holley 4 barrel,
header, duel exhaust.
it does the same hesitation thing, there is a dead spot (almost like the
engine would stop) when starting from a stop light (engine cold or
warm). It also happens when cruising, and you take your foot off the
accelerator and then try to regain speed. I have to feather the
gas, to keep the truck running.
It does it the worst during wet damp weather.

my carb is only 1 1/2 old and i just replaced the plugs, cap, rotor and
fuel filter.
All my vaccum hoses are good and i don't have any leaks anywhere.
I didn't try new wires because mine are only 1 1/2 old.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mike Johnson
mikej granger-co.com

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:14:21 -0800
From: Mike Marcum
Subject: RE: Carburator Problems???

Mike,

I am, by no means, an expert on Holley carbs. However, I have one, and
have been researching solutions to problems similiar to those you have
mentioned.

Has your engine experience a backfire through the carb in the last 1.5
years?

If so, then it is possible that your power valve is shot. Holley's are
infamous for having their power valves die due to a backfire. I have a
351 HO 4V in a 1986 F250, and it's Holley has similar problems. I
bought a rebuild kit ($20) and a power valve saver($10), which is a
little check-valve that screws into the bottom of the carb (some models
require some drilling) and plugging of another hole. At any rate, it is
supposed to protect your power valve from damage caused by a backfire.
Summit Racing advertises one in their mail order catalog. I got mine at
a local auto parts house.

As I understand it, the powervalve squirts a stream of fuel when you
punch the accellerator, which feeds the engine's needs, until enough
vacuum is developed to open up the (vacuum)secondaries.

I hope this gives you an idea to check out.

- - Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From:Mike Johnson [SMTP:MikeJ granger-co.com]
> Sent:Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:10 PM
> To:'fordtrucks80up listservice.net'
> Subject:Carburator Problems???
>
> I read the problem that Mitch Biarsky
> had with his '86 F250 w/351
> on the fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, December 26 1997
>
> Did he or anyone else figure out what could be causing the problem?
>
> I have an 86 f150 with the 300 cid engine, with a holley 4 barrel,
> header, duel exhaust.
> it does the same hesitation thing, there is a dead spot (almost like
> the
> engine would stop) when starting from a stop light (engine cold or
> warm). It also happens when cruising, and you take your foot off the
> accelerator and then try to regain speed. I have to feather the
> gas, to keep the truck running.
> It does it the worst during wet damp weather.
>
> my carb is only 1 1/2 old and i just replaced the plugs, cap, rotor
> and
> fuel filter.
> All my vaccum hoses are good and i don't have any leaks anywhere.
> I didn't try new wires because mine are only 1 1/2 old.
>
> any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Mike Johnson
> mikej granger-co.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, 8 Jan 1998 17:16:22 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Re: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97

In a message dated 98-01-06 21:51:21 EST, you write:



1st = 2.71
2nd = 1.54
3rd = 1.00
4th OD = .71
Reverse = 2.18 >>

OK, for those of us who come out of lurking only to show ignorance, what do
these numbers mean?

Craig {Midwest96 aol.com}

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:52:52 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97

At 05:16 PM 1/8/98 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-06 21:51:21 EST, you write:
>
>
>
> 1st = 2.71
> 2nd = 1.54
> 3rd = 1.00
> 4th OD = .71
> Reverse = 2.18 >>
>
>OK, for those of us who come out of lurking only to show ignorance, what do
>these numbers mean?
>

In *very* simple terms, it's a multiplier.

For every revolution of the engine, it translates to a 1/x revolution
of the drive wheel.

example in first gear 1/2.71 = .37 rotation of a tire.
4th gear 1/0.71 = 1.40 rotation of a tire.

The engine works a *lot* harder in 1st gear to go 60 mph, then in 4th gear.
Let me rephrase that, it has to at least "turn more revolutions".

Other factors are the gearing in the differential, tire size, and probably the
ability of the engine to spin all this stuff quickly. This is the hardware that
effects whether you get pinned to the seat when you jump on the accelerator.
Or how well you can tow a heavy trailer/load. And your overall top speed.

The trade offs are better load moving/performance vs. ecomomy - stuff like that.

I'm still figuring this out as well, so don't feel bad.
Gotta start somewhere.

- -john

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:47:21 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97

These are gear ratio inside the transmission. Note that they do not include
torque converter stall. Therefore, if the transmission is in 1st gear and
the converter is not in stall (highly unlikely), then the engine would turn
2.71 times faster then the output shaft of the transmission.

Bob Ford


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97
Author: Midwest96 at KOLLSMAN
Date: 1/8/98 10:16 PM




In a message dated 98-01-06 21:51:21 EST, you write:

1st = 2.71
2nd = 1.54
3rd = 1.00
4th OD = .71
Reverse = 2.18 >>
OK, for those of us who come out of lurking only to show
ignorance, what do
these numbers mean?
Craig {Midwest96 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: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:04:55 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 99 transmission gear ratios vs. 97

At 05:47 PM 1/8/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>These are gear ratio inside the transmission. Note that they do not include
>torque converter stall.

Can someone simply explain "torque converter stall". I have a basic
understanding of how automatics work, and have looked at torque converter
information/specs in a summit catalog, *and* was reading a some stuff
on the http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thegrid.net/thedrivetrainpage/.

But I still don't get it.

thanks,

- -john

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:11:21 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: 99 front end

At 01:41 PM 1/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Monobeam?

Ford's terminology for "straight axle", vs. TTB (Twin traction Beam)
(4x4 version) or Twin I-beam (2x4)
which were fords response to having "independent front" suspension.


>
>Can somebody clue me into what a monobeam front end is??
>
>later
>
>
>At 10:41 AM 1/8/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Original Message Starts Here
>|At 09:52 PM 1/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>|>I'm considering a 99 H.D. but need to know what kind of running gear,
>|>especially the front axle on a 4X4 they'll have. Differing rumors up
>|>here from a G.M. style independant to a solid axle. Dealers say "I
>|>think" this or that but no one seems to KNOW. Does any one out there
>|>know?
>|
>|I can't tell you the axle type, but written material says:
>|2x4 for the F250/F350 are an improved twin I beam.
>|4x4 for the F250-F550 are of a monobeam construction.
>|2x4 for the F450/F550 are of a monobeam type construction.
>|
>|These 2 sites probably have the best combined information on
>|the 99 trucks.
>|
>|http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/
>|or
>|http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/prod02.htm
>|http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/99-F-Series/f-series.html
>|
>|-john
>|

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

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:09:27 -0500
From: John Turner
Subject: Re: Invoices

I think every new truck should come with a case of ky.

daryl rue wrote:

> That is pretty funny, literally! Screw him. Just kidding.
>
> ____________________Reply Separator____________________
> Subject: Re: Invoices
> Author: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Date: 1/7/98 11:53 AM
>
> I think we beat this dead horse enough. I am tired of get 30+ messages a day
> about salespeople and the invoice price of a truck. This is as bad as the
> guy complaining how hard his truck rides. I say screw him, he should of
> taken a better test drive before buying the truck.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad Royse
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Invoices
>
> >That is AWESOME! So are you going to order it?
> >
> >daryl rue wrote:
> >
> >> Well,
> >>
> >> I just was told by a autobytel dealer hear in Omaha that he would order
> me a 99
> >> for invoice. First he tried to get $200 over invoice, so I told him I
> would
> >> have to ask another dealer if they would do it for invoice. He then
> agreed.
> >>
> >> Is the pricing in the computers yet? For the 99's
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Daryl
> >> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> >> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> >> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> >> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Chad
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Ch.5, Sub-ch.II, Sect.227(a)(2)(B), a
> >computer/modem meet the definition of a telephone fax machine. Pursuant
> >to Sect.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
> >advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual
> >monetary loss or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Any
> >unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a fee
> >in the amount of $500US per occurance. E-mailing denotes acceptance of
> >these terms.
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >
> > !! O I would rather be...
> > \O/ _O _O #=\ ___ __ _ _
> > __#__\#_\#____H_ \ | _ \__ _ / _| |_(_)_ _ __ _
> > _ ( : \ \ : )(\ | / _` | _| _| | ' \/ _` |
> > //~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|_|_\__,_|_| \__|_|_||_\__, |~~~~~
> >|| |___/
> >
> >New River - 1995, 1996, 1997
> >Fall Gauley - 1997 x-StRe M!!
> >
> >
> >+-------------- 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 -----------------+
> +-------------- 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, 08 Jan 1998 18:16:38 -0500
From: John Turner
Subject: Re: Bug Deflectors

I put a bug deflector on my 1996 f150. It works great. I did not notice a
change in gas mileage. The only negetive thing that I found was that at
highway speed I can't get the washer fluid onto the windshild.

John R. McKee wrote:

> I would like to hear from owners who have installed bug deflectors.
> First, do they work as advertised? Secondly, which ones work the best?
> Lastly, do the ones which are attached with sticky tape really stay on?
>
> Thank-you,
> John
> +-------------- 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, 8 Jan 1998 17:23:12 -0600
From: bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)
Subject: Re: Bug Deflectors

On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:18:35 EST johnmck juno.com (John R. McKee) writes:
>I would like to hear from owners who have installed bug deflectors.
>First, do they work as advertised? Secondly, which ones work the
>best? Lastly, do the ones which are attached with sticky tape >really
stay on?
>
>Thank-you,
>John
- -----------------+
When I first bought my 81 F100 (used) it had one of those old style flat
bug shields on it and it worked well, deflected bugs and even rain to
some extent, right up intil it broke in half and blew off! (no telling
how old it was) I bought a new aero-style deflector and while I thinks it
looks better, it is little more than a stone guard for the hood.
Personally, I would never buy anything that sticks on (the frame that
held the old style bugger on was on with screws and did not blow off)
although 3M probably has a ton of money that says I'm wrong about double
backed tape. My reasons include, but are not limited to: extreme
tempature changes, thermal expansion (of plastic bugger and hood and
adhedsives), aerodynamic and wind shear forces, ultraviolet radiation,
kids, may want to take it off later, etc.
I would just buy something that you like to look at every day, because,
as people who are supposed to be smarter than me says "Preception is
Reality"! ;-)

oh yeah, I never did put one on the explorer.

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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:35:54, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: 99 front end-monobeam....


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.