Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 03:50:26 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #29
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, January 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 029



=======================================================================
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: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger [Chad Royse ]
Re: problem with F150 5.0 [Bill Funk ]
Re: problem with F150 5.0 ["David J. Baldwin" ]
F350 front suspension sag? [Shawn Utz ]
F350 Body sag? [John Cassis ]
Re: problem with F150 5.0 ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: More Ford electrical problems (starting system problems) [ILuvTruks
Re: More Ford electrical problems (starting system problems) [ACMERCG
Re: 302 specs [Randall Wer ]
Re: 84' Bronco II Conversion [ACMERCG ]
1999 pricing [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger [Gardner ]
Re: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger [Dave Armbruster ]
Re: 84' Bronco II Conversion [Randy ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:31:59 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger

Thanks, but I wasn't inquiring for knowledge on retrofitting a 4.6L into a
Ranger. It was merely a comment. If you would not have taken it out of context
you may have noticed that I am not interested in putting it into a Ranger. The
idea was Ford would offer it as an option. The next major redesign of the Ranger
could very well incorporate enough room to accommodate the OHC V8. BTW, do you
actually know the width of the 4.6L? And the clearance under the hood? Is the OHC
4.0L V6 not a 90 degree block? It fits in the Explorer which has an almost
identical engine bay. The bore and stroke of the OHC 4.0L has to be a little
larger than that of the 4.6L. It has 25% less pistons but only 13% less
displacement. The point being, each bank on the block should be at least as tall
and at least as wide as the 4.6L.

Let us know what you find out. I would be much more interested in some solid
numbers rather than personal opinion when you flame me.

Iguannna wrote:

> In a message dated 1/20/98 2:31:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
> fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net writes:
>
> > chadlyr ix.netcom.com writes:
> >
> >
> > small
> > V-8.
> > The 4.6L maybe.
> >
> > Chad
>
> If you can get an overhead cam 90 degree V8 into a ranger go for it, and good
> luck, it won't fit cause it is way too wide! Same goes for the 4.2l V-6. The
> 5.0l cam in block barley fits as it is!
> +-------------- 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: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:21:17 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: problem with F150 5.0

> From: "David J. Baldwin"
> Subject: Re: problem with F150 5.0
>
> Z1bob wrote:
>
> > We have a 1990 F150SC 4X4 with a 5.0 V8 & aod trans. and 4.10
> gears. I am
> > looking for suggestions to increase the power and or gas mileage.
> This truck
> > is SLOW .......and it only gets about 11-12 mpg and drops to 7-8
> when towing a
> > 2500 lb trailer. Please only suggest what you have tried and know
> will help.
> > I have installed a Flowmaster cat-back exhaust but really didn't
> anything but
> > a nicer sound.
> > Thanks in advance for any help!
>
> Bob,
>
> I've got the same truck, but without 4WD, and a later model ('95). I
> never
> expected to do 12 second 1/4 miles, but I have to admit, it's pretty
> slow. I do
> get 16 MPG in mixed, mostly highway, driving, though.
>
> I've been surfing to find things that could be done to improve the
> performance.
> I have not made any changes yet (still under warranty), so I can't
> vouch
> personally. There's plenty of info available for Mustangs (which
> shared the same
> engine/trans with few differences). The problem is the difference in
> vehicle
> weight. Personally, I think that the best way to improve performance
> in a truck
> is to increase low-end torque--it's the only way to get a heavy
> vehicle off the
> line. I don't think the 302 will ever crank enought torque out to do
> this well,
> since it has such a short stroke. This engine likes to rev. You
> could drop a
> 351W in there, or find an old 400M--there's a few people on the list
> who have
> worked with these engines. I think they're better for truck
> applications.

...
I agree... that 5.0 is too small for the truck.
I had a 400M in our '81 F-250 2WD 4.10:1 AT , w/limited slip diff,
truck. I bought it used, and the engine was pretty well shot, so I
rebuilt it (that's what I did then). Basicly, left the block stock after
boring & new piston/ring set, except for an RV cam from the Yellow Hat
people. Then, an Edlebrock Performer manifold, Holley 650 progressive
carb, stock headers, and duals (no cats, legal). That setup would spin
the rear tires from an idle just by stepping on the gas! Mileage on the
road was still about 15 mpg. Excellent results in the emissions tests,
too. Stock plugs, lit by K-Mart(!) coil.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:49:24 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: problem with F150 5.0

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> ...
> I agree... that 5.0 is too small for the truck.
> I had a 400M in our '81 F-250 2WD 4.10:1 AT , w/limited slip diff,
> truck. I bought it used, and the engine was pretty well shot, so I
> rebuilt it (that's what I did then). Basicly, left the block stock after
> boring & new piston/ring set, except for an RV cam from the Yellow Hat
> people. Then, an Edlebrock Performer manifold, Holley 650 progressive
> carb, stock headers, and duals (no cats, legal). That setup would spin
> the rear tires from an idle just by stepping on the gas! Mileage on the
> road was still about 15 mpg. Excellent results in the emissions tests,
> too. Stock plugs, lit by K-Mart(!) coil.
>
> Bill Funk

Yeah, I wish I had got the 351W motor. I made the mistake of listening
to the sales guy who said that I "wouldn't pass up too many service
stations" with the 351.

So I ended up with the 302 which doesn't have the torque for this
vehicle, and the light-duty AODE trans to go with it! Bummer. If I had
known about the transmission thing, I would've got the bigger engine
just for that reason. In the final analysis, I get the same milage out
of the small one that people are getting out of the 351, +/- 1 to 2 MPG.

I don't know what the last year of the 400M was, but I imagine that they
would be getting hard to find now. I believe there were some casting
problems on some blocks, and maybe other things as well. I have a
friend who towed a good-sized trailer with one in an LTD back in the
'70s and it lasted a good long time (

Could always stroke a 351W to 400! Hmmmm. :^)

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX 75243
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 10:18:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Shawn Utz
Subject: F350 front suspension sag?

When I look at our F30 CC PS LB in the driveway it appears to sit
crooked. I had little time so I checked the tires and measured
from the driveway to the bumper trim, I am sure there is a better
way to measure. These measurements showed about an inch delta.
That seems extreme to me. The driveway is flatter than that.

The truck is new. It has 2K miles on it. Any suggestions before I call
Ford?

Thanks in advance,

Shawn

I have read the TSB concerning add-a-leaf crap on some F series to
bring the front end back into spec. LAME!

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:48:47 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: F350 Body sag?

Could be one of the bushings between the frame and body? Just a guess.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger
93' STX 4x4

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:09:53 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: problem with F150 5.0

Randy wrote:
>
> Hope you don't think I'm picking on ya here Dave

Randy,

I don't. The reason that we participate in these things is to see if
someone else may know something that we are unaware of. Like the header
thing: while theoretically possible to manufacture one optimised for
low-end torque, I am personally unaware of a manufacturer that markets
such a header (and is willing to back it up with dyno results) for a
truck application. Maybe it's out there and I just haven't hit that
site yet. I would think the demand for this product would be low
(compared to Mustang, and especially small-block Chevies).

Not only do we have to be concerned about availability, but whether or
not it will meet emissions regulations. In some areas you could tear
all emissions equipment off and no one would be the wiser. Some of us
(like me) will be having annual emissions testing soon.

The intake that I was referring to was Edelbrock #3841. Do you (or
anyone else) personally have experience with this one? If so, did you
notice any difference over the stock EFI intake setup? The thing that
bugs me about this manifold is that they don't offer any numbers for
comparison over the stock manifold. The stock manifold is probably (key
word--probably--I don't know for sure) building close to optimum low-end
torque already.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX 75243
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:44:24 EST
From: ILuvTruks
Subject: Re: More Ford electrical problems (starting system problems)

Chris,
I suspect that the wire from the relay to the starter is in need of
replacement. Otherwise, the relay could have gone bad if you got a cheap one
or a dud. Try jumping the starter first with the battery cable. Just take it
off the post, then touch it to the other side of the relay. If the engine
turns, it's the relay, if not, it's either the cable or the starter itself.

In a message dated 98-01-21 16:52:22 EST, you write:

> uice to the starter. It has had the starter
> relay replaced about a month ago, so I highly doubt it could be that. I
> replaced one of the battery terminals and that still did
> not help. Could the battery cables be corroded or maybe the cable going
> from the relay to the starter be corroded? What else
> could it be?
>
> Frustrated,
>
> Chris "Lube" Lublin.
>

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:06:48 EST
From: ACMERCG
Subject: Re: More Ford electrical problems (starting system problems)

WHAT NOISES DOES IT MAKE WHEN YOU TURN THE KEY?

JOE

acmercg aol.com

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:35:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Randall Wer
Subject: Re: 302 specs

I won a 1990 F250 4X4 with a 302 V8 and a 5-speed. I was wondering if
anybody could tell me HP and torque numbers for it, and the rpm they peak
at. Also, I was wondering what the redline is on it.

Thanks for any help!

Randy Werth
wer6704 uidaho.edu

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:43:37 EST
From: ACMERCG
Subject: Re: 84' Bronco II Conversion

Still looking for any info regarding a 4.0 or 5.0 conversion into
this auto equipped 4X4. Anyone have any suggestions?

Let me know,

Joe
acmercg aol.com

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:57:28, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: 1999 pricing

If anyone is interested, I finally have pricing for the 1999 Super
Duties. If anyone wants a quote or has questions, feel free to write
me.

Josh Tenney
Lakeland Truck Center
KNBD87D prodigy.com

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:51:57 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger

Iguannna wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/20/98 2:31:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
> fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net writes:
>
> > chadlyr ix.netcom.com writes:
> >
> >
> > small
> > V-8.
> > The 4.6L maybe.
> >
> > Chad
>
> If you can get an overhead cam 90 degree V8 into a ranger go for it, and good
> luck, it won't fit cause it is way too wide! Same goes for the 4.2l V-6. The
> 5.0l cam in block barley fits as it is!
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

How does it fit in an explorer then?

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:34:38 -0700
From: Dave Armbruster
Subject: Re: fordtrucks 4.6l in Ranger

>In a message dated 1/20/98 2:31:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-
>fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net writes:
>
>> chadlyr ix.netcom.com writes:
>>
>>
>> small
>> V-8.
>> The 4.6L maybe.
>>
>> Chad
>
>If you can get an overhead cam 90 degree V8 into a ranger go for it, and good
>luck, it won't fit cause it is way too wide! Same goes for the 4.2l V-6. The
>5.0l cam in block barley fits as it is!

I know that the Explorer and the Ranger don't share the same front
sheetmetal clip, but I thought I might have heard somewhere that the '98 is
the same front suspension. If that's true, then the suspension would
require a known amount of room and dictate to a point how the front
sheetmetal is formed (for shock towers, tire clearance, etc.). Also, that
suspension set-up can obviously handle the weight of the V-8. So, I would
think that if Ford wanted to put a 5.0L (EPA would frown on that) or the
modular engine it, they could have done easily.

My thought was that with all the flak that SUVs are taking right now with
the fuel economy and all, that Ford wanted to be as competitive in that
market as they could be and not take too much of a CAFE hit in other models
that may not be generating so much publicity. Putting a V-8 in the Ranger
would probably have lowered the model's overall government fuel economy
rating, and with all the car companies toeing the line anyway, that would
mean even higher penalties from the EPA. As long as the Ranger keeps
selling well, they are going to be reluctant to take too much risk with it.

my $.02
Dave

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:46:34 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: 84' Bronco II Conversion

You could put a few different things in there depending on how much work
you wanted to to. I've seen 302 Fords and 305 and 350 Ch*vies in Rangers.
I suppose that you have about as much engine compartment as they do. I
would stick to the 302 though myself. I would recommend upgrading the
driveline as well, especially if you build the motor even mildly (and
what's the point if you don't). I have no idea what driveline is in there
now, but I'd go w/at least a C-4 tranny and upgrade the axles too. Maybe
Dana 44's? Does that truck have IFS or straight axle up front? If you
can't find other axles check into swapping your axleshafts for beefier ones
(the # of splines is related to diameter). If it has say 28 spline
axleshafts, can you get 31 splines for it? Since I don't know what
driveline it comes with, these are merely suggestions at this point.
helps I hope?
Randy

ACMERCG wrote:

> Still looking for any info regarding a 4.0 or 5.0 conversion into
> this auto equipped 4X4. Anyone have any suggestions?
>....

---

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.