fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, May 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 154



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

LOUD fuel pump [ric_bergstrom juno.com (Richard L. Bergstrom)]
RE: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection. ["Chad D. Cassetty"
Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop [David Anderson
Re: Strange Problem ["Casey Vandor" ]
RE: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection. [Danny Metz
Re: Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop [Chris Hedemark
RE: Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop [Sean Winters
ADMIN: List downtime scheduled [Ken Payne ]
Re: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection. ["David J. Baldwin"
Re: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection. [Danny Metz
Vin / Door Label Decoding ["Dave Resch" ]
Re: Vin / Door Label Decoding [ss80xt worldnet.att.net]
blah [punk007 juno.com (Mason Domanski)]
antifreeze leak [Hawk sktc.net]

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:40:11 -0400
From: ric_bergstrom juno.com (Richard L. Bergstrom)
Subject: LOUD fuel pump

I have a 92 f150 with 6cyl. fuel pump has gotten annoyingly loud.

Haynes makes it look to be _relatively_ easy to get the tank out and
replace it.

Question is...do I need to?

Will this lead to failure or engine damage..if I can put up with the
noise?

Is this a DIY type job?

Thanks in advance!


Ric Bergstrom, Richmond, VA
1973 Midget 1275 '88 240 Volvo '92 F150 '74 Midget 1275
(apart!)
Central Virginia MG Classics, AMGBA, VMSC

_____________________________________________________________________
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]

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 7:26 -0600
From: "Chad D. Cassetty"
Subject: RE: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.

I haven't had any experience with this personally, so all I can offer is
our support dept: support holley.com, or (502) 781-9741.

Regards,

Chad Cassetty
Holley Performance Products
chadcassetty holley.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Posluszny, Walt (posl) [SMTP:fordtrucks80up listservice.net]
Sent: Thursday 3:25 PM
To: 'fordtrucks80up ListService.net'
Subject: RE: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.

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

Second Attempt. I find it hard to beleive that no one out there has
tried
this...............


Walt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Posluszny, Walt (posl)
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 11:21 AM
> To: 'fordtrucks80up ListService.net'
> Subject: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.
>
> I'd like some feedback from folks who have made the above switch.
>
> My 15 year old carb is dog tired and am considering switching to a
Holley
> Projection System since I am planning on keeping the truck for a while.
>
> Has any one done this before. ?
>
> How do you feel about the swap now that it is done?
>
> Pros ?
>
> Cons ?
>
> Did you go 2bbl or 4 bbl conversion? (year truck?).
>
> How's the reliability?
>
> Was set-up easy or a pain in the arse to get it right?
>
> Are you glad you did it?
>
> Did the system you install include the closed loop O2 sensor set-up or
the
> simpler open loop system?
>
> Many thanks.. Walt


+--------------- 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, 1 May 1998 08:39:46 -0500
From: David Anderson
Subject: Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop

I've got a '90 F150 4.9L that's due for a muffler and tailpipe soon. My
question is whether to go to the Ford parts counter and buy original
parts or go to a franchise muffler shop. Past experience with franchise
shops is that I pay a fair price for a lifetime guaranteed muffler but
then I'm back every 1 or 2 yrs because the cheap things rust out so
fast. This is not a $ problem, just a hassle problem. Now my truck has
nearly 100K miles and 8 years on the original stuff. Wouldn't it make
sense just to get original replacement parts and expect another 100K and
8 yrs without going back in for mufflers all the time? Recent
discussion has done a good job of covering lots of interesting exhaust
options. I'm not looking to review all that again. I just need a
replacement stock type exhaust. The only shops I have in my area are
Midas and Monroe. Another question: if I go to Ford do I get an
original quality muffler or do they just put a big markup on the same
cheap parts the shops use?

Thanks,
David Anderson

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 06:48:54 -0800
From: "Casey Vandor"
Subject: Re: Strange Problem

I have the same problem even after a new manifold and carb. I can get it to
kick down for about 3 seconds, and then (i am guessing the computer) just
kicks it back up for me. I can't ever let it idle anywhere on its own (like
run into the house to grab something even, I came back out and it was Way up
in the rpm dept. I am still not sure as to what is causing this problem.

Thanks
Casey

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:54:31 -0400
From: Danny Metz
Subject: RE: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.

Walt,

I posed a question about a week ago, about rebuilding a 5.0 in a 90 F-150
for more torque in the idle to 3000 rpm range, for towing . . . AND GOT
NO RESPONSES!! I guess this list has got only a few folks doing most of
the responses, and since I'm the "new guy" . . . Well, you figure it out!

I will try to help you out on your question: I intalled a Holley
Projection on an Ch**y small block, in a 23 foot speedboat. I used the
open loop system, 2 barrel unit. Holley claims to have had a bad run of
injectors, but in the first 20 hours of use, I had 4 injectors crap out on
me! Replacing the injectors always cured the problem, but in the
beginning, I wasn't carrying spare injectors, and getting towed in isn't
fun. Holley inspected the bad units, and trash wasn't the problem. They
always replaced the units, and eventually sent me several spares, no
charge. It ran fine for the last few months of last summer, but we will
see what this season brings. It did increase the drivebility of the
engine, was easy to install and tune, and made start-up an instantaneous
thing, versus the old carburator. Would I do it again . . . NO!
Maybe they improved the design, bu in my opinion, THAT version hit the
market way too soon!


Danny

03:25 PM 4/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Second Attempt. I find it hard to beleive that no one out there has tried
>this...............
>
>Walt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:Posluszny, Walt (posl)
>> Sent:Friday, April 24, 1998 11:21 AM
>> To:'fordtrucks80up ListService.net'
>> Subject:Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.
>>
>> I'd like some feedback from folks who have made the above switch.
>>
>> My 15 year old carb is dog tired and am considering switching to a Holley
>> Projection System since I am planning on keeping the truck for a while.
>>
>> Has any one done this before. ?
>>
>> How do you feel about the swap now that it is done?
>>
>> Pros ?
>>
>> Cons ?
>>
>> Did you go 2bbl or 4 bbl conversion? (year truck?).
>>
>> How's the reliability?
>>
>> Was set-up easy or a pain in the arse to get it right?
>>
>> Are you glad you did it?
>>
>> Did the system you install include the closed loop O2 sensor set-up or the
>> simpler open loop system?
>>
>> Many thanks.. Walt
>+--------------- 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, 01 May 1998 10:54:47 -0400
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop

David Anderson wrote:

> I've got a '90 F150 4.9L that's due for a muffler and tailpipe soon. My
> question is whether to go to the Ford parts counter and buy original
> parts or go to a franchise muffler shop. Past experience with franchise
> shops is that I pay a fair price for a lifetime guaranteed muffler but
> then I'm back every 1 or 2 yrs because the cheap things rust out so
> fast. This is not a $ problem, just a hassle problem. Now my truck has
> nearly 100K miles and 8 years on the original stuff. Wouldn't it make
> sense just to get original replacement parts and expect another 100K and
> 8 yrs without going back in for mufflers all the time? Recent
> discussion has done a good job of covering lots of interesting exhaust
> options. I'm not looking to review all that again. I just need a
> replacement stock type exhaust. The only shops I have in my area are
> Midas and Monroe. Another question: if I go to Ford do I get an
> original quality muffler or do they just put a big markup on the same
> cheap parts the shops use?

I'll give you one more option. Borla makes a stainless steel exhaust
for our trucks that will almost certainly outlast a new truck, let alone
one with 100,000 miles on it. You'll pay more up front, but you'll
never be bothered with the exhaust again. The sound is louder than
stock, but a very mild throaty sound that only gets loud at WOT (but
still nowhere near as loud as a glasspack or a flowmaster).

Send an email to franzke ibm.net (Bob Franzke of Performance
International) and tell him I sent you for a good deal on Borla stuff.
(I am not getting any kickback from this but I've gotten good deals from
Bob and he said he'd extend good deals to anyone I send on to him which
AFAIK he's held up his end of that offer).

- --

Chris Hedemark - chris yonderway.com - http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.yonderway.com
"From the fury of the Norsemen, oh Lord, deliver us!"

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:27:20 -0500
From: Sean Winters
Subject: RE: Exhaust System: Ford vs Muffler Shop

I believe the Borla has a lifetime warranty too. Very nice system with a
very distinct sound (and price.)

Three chamber flowmasters are not nearly as loud as the two chamber that
you typically hear on, say, 5.0 mustangs...almost a drone. They are very
good mufflers; but they are not stainless.

One thing I would strongly advise against is glasspacks for reasons that
have been hashed out in this list before.

Sean Winters
82 Stepside
soon to be medium charcoal metallic!!!



I'll give you one more option. Borla makes a stainless steel exhaust
for our trucks that will almost certainly outlast a new truck, let alone
one with 100,000 miles on it. You'll pay more up front, but you'll
never be bothered with the exhaust again. The sound is louder than
stock, but a very mild throaty sound that only gets loud at WOT (but
still nowhere near as loud as a glasspack or a flowmaster).

Send an email to franzke ibm.net (Bob Franzke of Performance
International) and tell him I sent you for a good deal on Borla stuff.
(I am not getting any kickback from this but I've gotten good deals from
Bob and he said he'd extend good deals to anyone I send on to him which
AFAIK he's held up his end of that offer).

- --

Chris Hedemark - chris yonderway.com - http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.yonderway.com
"From the fury of the Norsemen, oh Lord, deliver us!"



+--------------- 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, 01 May 1998 11:24:52 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: List downtime scheduled

Saturday night at 8:00pm EST the lists will go down for the switch
to the new list server. All posts to the old lists after this time
will disappear into the bit bucket without a trace. Emails such
as "why aren't my posts getting through" and "why is the list dead"
will be ignored - take this as Fair Warning (Lord, strike that
poor boy down.... sorry Deacon, couldn't resist).

The switch should take a couple of hours but don't count on it.
Once the switch takes place, an email will be sent to all list
members containing subscribe, unsubscribe and posting
instructions. After receiving this email you'll be able to
post.

Subscribe requests to the old server will simply result in an
email containing new subscribe instructions. The web site
and FAQ will be updated to reflect the server change.

Also, no posts prior to downtime will get lost. I'll be
forcing a digest to go out to digest members about 5 minutes
before the shutdown so everyone will get their FTE fix.

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:05:57 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.

Danny,

Sorry you got no response. Now I feel bad. Could be because I have a '95 F-150
with a 5.0 as well, and have been looking around for some help in the low-end
torque department. I've come to the conclusion that I should have bought the 351
motor in the truck. I will say that I get decent milage with the 5.0 (16 - 17
MPG typically in mixed mostly highway driving).

You probably know that the 302 (5.0L) has a 4" bore and a 3" stroke. Not exactly
a design for low-end torque. But it will rev. There's no shortage of equipment
out there for 302/5.0 that take advantage of its ability to build lots of power
on the top end (for Mustangs, of course), but I have not seen too many things for
truck/low-end torque applications.

What I have read or seen:

Edelbrock makes an intake manifold for fuel injected truck applications. I don't
know what differentiates this from the Mustang unit. They publish no
before/after torque curves on their website. You might email them. Maybe they
have some info. I believe that someone on the list had one of these, but I don't
know if there was a really noticeable increase in torque.

There's a new cross-ram intake on the market called BXR. The original was
designed for typical high-end applications, but had an amazingly broad torque
band--although it was above 3000 RPM. They have a new variant with longer
runners which brings the useful torque band down into a range more useful for
trucks. These things are expensive though, and you have to replace the
distributor with a belt drive converted unit. Looks like a lot of bother to me,
especially when for a similar amount of money you could have....

a supercharger. I think this is probably the only really good way to get some
serious low-end torque out of the beast. When I'm out of warranty, I'm going to
slap one of these bad-boys on mine. I think there are a couple of people on the
list with the centrifugal blowers--they might want to comment. I believe I will
go with a positive-displacement type (Rootes) unit since the boost is there as
soon as you smack the throttle. I'd look at the Eaton-based kits first, since
they have a long history of running in production vehicles like the Super-Coupe
Thunderbird that first appeared almost ten years ago now. They also have a
built-in bypass so you're not working the unit at low load. They claim less than
1MPG loss in milage because of this. I'll let you know in a few years when I do
mine!

As far a Projection goes, I've never seen anyone on the list mention it before.
Thanks for the info.

Danny Metz wrote:

> Walt,
>
> I posed a question about a week ago, about rebuilding a 5.0 in a 90 F-150
> for more torque in the idle to 3000 rpm range, for towing . . . AND GOT
> NO RESPONSES!!

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:01:11 -0400
From: Danny Metz
Subject: Re: Stock Carb vs. Holley Projection.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the response. Although I considered (for a REAL short time)
supercharging, what I really want is a cam and heads that are optimized in
the idle to 3000 rpm range. I prefer to keep the stock heads, and do some
mild porting. My truck has 111k miles on it, and is beginning to lose
power. At 75mph on the interstate with no load, cruise control on, it
will lose 5-7 mph climbing mild inclines, and shift back to drive. When I
put my boat behind it, its only going to get worse. Several of the cam
manufacturers make claims for increased torque in "towing and recreational
vehicles". What I am looking for is someone who has first hand experience
with these cams. Thanks again!

Danny

At 11:05 AM 5/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Danny,
>
>Sorry you got no response. Now I feel bad. Could be because I have a '95
F-150
>with a 5.0 as well, and have been looking around for some help in the low-end
>torque department. I've come to the conclusion that I should have bought
the 351
>motor in the truck. I will say that I get decent milage with the 5.0 (16
- - 17
>MPG typically in mixed mostly highway driving).
>
>You probably know that the 302 (5.0L) has a 4" bore and a 3" stroke. Not
exactly
>a design for low-end torque. But it will rev. There's no shortage of
equipment
>out there for 302/5.0 that take advantage of its ability to build lots of
power
>on the top end (for Mustangs, of course), but I have not seen too many
things for
>truck/low-end torque applications.
>
>What I have read or seen:
>
>Edelbrock makes an intake manifold for fuel injected truck applications.
I don't
>know what differentiates this from the Mustang unit. They publish no
>before/after torque curves on their website. You might email them. Maybe
they
>have some info. I believe that someone on the list had one of these, but
I don't
>know if there was a really noticeable increase in torque.
>
>There's a new cross-ram intake on the market called BXR. The original was
>designed for typical high-end applications, but had an amazingly broad torque
>band--although it was above 3000 RPM. They have a new variant with longer
>runners which brings the useful torque band down into a range more useful for
>trucks. These things are expensive though, and you have to replace the
>distributor with a belt drive converted unit. Looks like a lot of bother
to me,
>especially when for a similar amount of money you could have....
>
>a supercharger. I think this is probably the only really good way to get
some
>serious low-end torque out of the beast. When I'm out of warranty, I'm
going to
>slap one of these bad-boys on mine. I think there are a couple of people
on the
>list with the centrifugal blowers--they might want to comment. I believe
I will
>go with a positive-displacement type (Rootes) unit since the boost is
there as
>soon as you smack the throttle. I'd look at the Eaton-based kits first,
since
>they have a long history of running in production vehicles like the
Super-Coupe
>Thunderbird that first appeared almost ten years ago now. They also have a
>built-in bypass so you're not working the unit at low load. They claim
less than
>1MPG loss in milage because of this. I'll let you know in a few years
when I do
>mine!
>
>As far a Projection goes, I've never seen anyone on the list mention it
before.
>Thanks for the info.
>
>Danny Metz wrote:
>
>> Walt,
>>
>> I posed a question about a week ago, about rebuilding a 5.0 in a 90 F-150
>> for more torque in the idle to 3000 rpm range, for towing . . . AND GOT
>> NO RESPONSES!!
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>
>Dave Baldwin
>Dallas, TX
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>+--------------- 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, 1 May 1998 11:14:22 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Vin / Door Label Decoding

>From: Steve Faust
>Subject: Vin / Door Label Decoding
>
>OK, can any of you fantastic experts (Rick Wojo, Dave R.
>(M-block devotee), et.al.) help me with some straight answers.

Yo Steve:

Oooh! Fantastic Expert... I'll have to add that to my resume. Can I use
you for a reference? :-) Actually, my expertise is very limited and much
more in the early 80s trucks than later 80s, but I'll tell you what I
(think I ) know.

> '88 F-250 XLT 4x4 Supercab w/ 8' bed
> 7.3 ltr Diesel
> 3-speed auto tranny

First off, if you have a 3-speed automatic transmission in any F250 or
F350, it's a C6. The C6 has been around since the late 60s and they are
virtually indestructible. They were still available as an option in F350s
(with 10K lbs GVW and 12K lbs towing capacity!) at least as late as 1995.
The E4OD is a 4-speed overdrive update of the C6 design, but it's not as
strong or as bulletproof as the venerable C6.

>From what I've read from a past 'Dave R. (M-block devotee)'
>posting the T-case should be a BW 1356? But I've heard
>everything from Dana 44, to Dana 55 (per Chilton's Manual),
>to Dana 60 on the axles.

The transfer case used in all HD Ford pickups (F250/350) from 1984 to 1991
was the BW 1356. The BW 1356 may have been used later, but I'm not sure of
that.

The TTB front drive axle in F250 HD applications from 1987-on (to 1997) is
the Dana 50. The Dana 44 and 44 HD were discontinued in F250s after 1986.
The Dana 44 TTB was still used in F150s and FS Broncos until the Bronco was
discontinued and the new IFS F150 came out.

The rear axle in all F250 HDs and F350s from 1986-on (to 1997) is the Ford
corporate 10.25" full floater axle. The 10.25" designation refers to the
size of the ring gear. The Dana 60 was discontinued as a Ford HD rear axle
after 1985. The Ford corporate 8.8" and 9" rear axles were used only in FS
Broncos and F100/150s. These were never used in F250/350 trucks.

Contrary to the info on the 4xFord web page (
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www2.datasync.com/mclain/4x4.htm), all Ford 10.25" axles are
full-floating. I have never seen a semi-floating version of this axle.
Ford did, however, use a semi-floating Dana 60 (model 60-2) in early 80s
F250s w/ the lower GVWs.

BTW: A reasonably cooperative dealer service department should be able to
look up axle, trans, and spring codes for a late model pickup. Otherwise,
you can write to Ford Customer Service directly and give them your VIN and
they will tell you everything about your truck's original build
configuration. Their address is:

Ford Motor Company
Customer Assistance Center
300 Renaissance Center
P.O. Box 43360
Detroit MI 48243

Hope this helps.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:52:04 -0400
From: ss80xt worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Vin / Door Label Decoding

Dave,

I have to disagree on a couple of minor points. The Dana 44HD was used in
F250s and F250HDs in standard cab trucks without heavy duty front
suspension. Supercabs and trucks with the HD front suspension option got
the Dana 50. The semi-floating 10.25" rear axle was used in F250s. The
F250HD got the full-floater. This is according to my 1991 Ford service
manuals and spec books. Obviously, in this case, the truck should have the
Dana 50 TTB front and Ford full-floating 10.25" rear.

Steve S.

- ----------

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

Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:01:15 +0000
From: punk007 juno.com (Mason Domanski)
Subject: blah

I'm new to the list. I have a 1986 F-150, 2WD, Auto. Trans., 300 cid. I
just got it not to long ago. I want to know all of the colors that were
available that year so I know the official color. By the way, I can't....

---

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.