Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 15:51:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest Digest V97 #37
X-Loop: fordtrucks80up-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/37
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
To: fordtrucks80up-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks80up-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:

RE: fordtrucks80up-digest Digest V97 [Larry Smeins ]
Re: ["J. Martin"
PROBLEMS WITH 1997 F150 CREW CAB WIN [Owen Grover ]
PowerStrokes With Sagging Front Spri [rogerlov ix.netcom.com (Roger Lovin]
Re: '98 Ford F-350 [Bill Funk ]
Re: '98 Ford F-350 [Croth2 aol.com ]
Re: '98 Ford F-350 [Ducks4jim aol.com ]
Re: mo' power :) [ir002129 mindspring.com (Dave Armbr]
Re: mo' power :) [ksbdj00 tamuk.edu (Johnson Bradford]
power sliding window [ksbdj00 tamuk.edu (Johnson Bradford]
trouble shooting [John Fleming
88 ranger [swordsc db.erau.edu ]
Re: mo' power :) [Ben Markert
Re: trouble shooting [JIM HURD ]
94 Ranger Problem [Kenneth Overton ]

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 12:22:33 -0600
From: Larry Smeins
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Cc: "'mucilli sol.rutgers.edu'"
Subject: RE: fordtrucks80up-digest Digest V97 #36
Message-Id:

>Date: Wed, 9 Jul 97 19:46:04 EDT
>From: "Todd A. Muccilli"
>To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
>Subject: 1997 F-350 ride height
>Message-ID:

>Some of you may remember me as having handling problems with a
1997 >F-350
>regular cab 4x4 Powerstroke. In my quest to resolve the
problem, I have >come
>across something that I feel the need to question. Is it
typical for the >diesel
>versions of these pickups to have a lower ride height than the
gasoline
>versions? Lately, I have compared my truck to a number of
gasoline->powered
>models, all in the same trim and with the heavy duty front
suspension, and >I
>have noticed that my truck sits at least one inch lower in the
front than >these
>other trucks. Whereas most of the gasoline-powered F-350s I
see seem >to sit
>nearly level, mine appears to rake down in the front.
Additionally, my >front
>springs don't seem to have the same kind of arch as the springs
on the >trucks I
>compare it to.

>Considering I've been having a lot of trouble with front-end
noises and
>all-around poor handling, I am considering all possibilities.
I know the >diesel
>is a heavy engine, but should it be so heavy as to drop the
front end an >inch or
>more that a gasoline engine? I guess I should just find
another diesel and >make
>a comparison, but I figured I'd ask first.

>Thanks in advance,
>Todd

In 1995 the diesel added about 400 pounds to the truck over a
460 gas and about 550 over a small block gas. This is total added
weight but most of it is over the front axle. In 1995 the diesel came
with a heavy duty suspension that was different than what came with the
460. It was not an option it was standard with the diesel. My F-250
supercab 4x4 Powerstroke sits level unloaded. I'm not familiar with how
things were done for 97s but I would expect the HD suspension for
diesels would be different than for gas. The differences may not be
obvious but I'd try to determine if you actually have a diesel HD front
suspension set up.

Hope this helps.

Larry
If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:38:10 -0700
From: "J. Martin"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re:
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Someone else on the Fordnatics list just posted something to this
effect...
Anyway, someone suggested that he look into the 4-wheelin and off road
magazines...and that they have some ads for Bronco II oriented
products...

Good luck,

Josh --> '88 Ranger, wanna-be TurboCoot



DIRK PITT wrote:

> >i have a 90 bronco II with a 2.9ltr and am looking for some after
> market

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 20:23:51 -0400
From: Owen Grover
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: PROBLEMS WITH 1997 F150 CREW CAB WINDOWS
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I PURCHASED A 1997 F150 CREW CAB IN MARCH OF 1997. SINCE THAT TIME I HAVE
HAD THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR WINDOW FIXED 3 TIMES. IT GETS STUCK GOING DOWN
WHEN IT IS COLD. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ANY ONE ELSE HAS HAD A SIMILAR
PROBLEM, OR IF THEY CAN SUGGEST A SOLUTION TO THIS STICKY PROBLEM

THANKS OWEN

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 23:55:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: rogerlov ix.netcom.com (Roger Loving)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: PowerStrokes With Sagging Front Springs
Message-Id:

You wrote:
>
>Date: Wed, 9 Jul 97 19:46:04 EDT
>From: "Todd A. Muccilli"
>To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
>Subject: 1997 F-350 ride height
>Message-ID:
>
>Some of you may remember me as having handling problems with a 1997 F-350
>regular cab 4x4 Powerstroke. In my quest to resolve the problem, I have come
>across something that I feel the need to question. Is it typical for the diesel
>versions of these pickups to have a lower ride height than the gasoline
>versions? Lately, I have compared my truck to a number of gasoline-powered
>models, all in the same trim and with the heavy duty front suspension, and I
>have noticed that my truck sits at least one inch lower in the front than these
>other trucks.
>Thanks in advance,
>Todd

Todd, my wife drives a 4x4 F250 Powerstroke, a '95. We were told by the
dealer to watch to see if the springs started sagging and if so we were to
request that the springs be replaced for free. Apparently it is some sort of Ford
program that can get you brand new front leafs springs...but only if you tell
them that it is obvious that your springs are sagging too much. There may be
other requirements as well, and we might not have been told about them because
they knew us and knew that the truck was still under warranty. So we measured
them, and ours are not sagging, but Ford is aware that some do sag. Hope this all
helps,
Roger Loving

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:18:43 -0700
From: Bill Funk
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '98 Ford F-350
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> From: "Suzan Sommer"
> Subject: '98 Ford F350
>
> Greetings:
>
> My name is Suzan. I currently own an '89 Ford F350 Crew Cab Dually (XLT
> Lariat) with the Rollalong package. It's a nice truck, but since I
> purchased my heavy duty steel horse trailer (four horse) it can't pull
> worth beans. No guts and lots of over heating.
>
> I've been waiting to purchase the newer style Ford cause I don't want to
> pay that kind of money for the "older" body style. But no one can tell me
> if, in fact, the '98's will be the newer body style and when they will be
> coming out. I also want a Diesel and one that can pull up to 14,000 -
> 15,000 pounds. Any recommendations or information that anyone can share?
> It would be appreciated.
>
> Suzan

Hi, Suzan...
Right up front, you are going to have a hard time finding a dually
pickup capable of hauling 14-15K lbs. Here's why:
The Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) is the amount of weight the
vehicle *and trailer* can weigh, loaded. Look at the highest GCWR you
can find for a 1-ton dually, subtract the *real* weight of the truck
(including fuel, passengers, gear, dogs, cooler, beer, etc) from the
GCWR, and that's how much trailer you can tow.
Quite a shock, huh?
You may well be in the market for a used medium-duty truck.
Another tack to try: use a lighter trailer, and re-engine that '89 for a
whole lot less, and spend some of the savings on upgrading the interior
to better than a '98.

--
Bill Funk
President, ASCII User Group
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.starlink.com/~ascii

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 10:23:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Croth2 aol.com
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '98 Ford F-350
Message-ID:

My name is Suzan. I currently own an '89 Ford F350 Crew Cab Dually (XLT
> Lariat) with the Rollalong package. It's a nice truck, but since I
> purchased my heavy duty steel horse trailer (four horse) it can't pull
> worth beans. No guts and lots of over heating.
>
> I've been waiting to purchase the newer style Ford cause I don't want to
> pay that kind of money for the "older" body style. But no one can tell me
> if, in fact, the '98's will be the newer body style and when they will be
> coming out. I also want a Diesel and one that can pull up to 14,000 -
> 15,000 pounds. Any recommendations or information that anyone can share?
> It would be appreciated.
>
> Suzan

Suzan,
I am very surprised that your 89 F-350 wont pull a loaded down Four Horse
trailer. We used to have a 89 F-250 that would pull ours without problems.
and My 87 F-150 with a 300-6 will even pull it without much drag, and its
an old heavy steel trailer. If I were you I would have it looked at. A
F-350 should be able to pull that without overheating, and losing power.
---->Tim

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:33:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ducks4jim aol.com
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '98 Ford F-350
Message-ID:

Suzan,

I purchased a '97 F250 Supercab powerstroke with the old body style and
have yet to see any indication that Ford will put the powerstroke in the new
body style. Whats wrong with the old style anyway?

I only pull a heavy 2 horse trailer, but I can tell you it's no problem
pulling the loaded trailer over long grades at 65mph. I know folks with
supercab powerstrokes that pull 10K lbs plus with no problems whatsoever.

As far as re-engining your '89, I was told by the dealer that retail for a
powerstroke in a crate was 14K (!). Save your money and buy a new one.

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 16:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: ir002129 mindspring.com (Dave Armbruster)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: mo' power :)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The one Flowmaster cat-back that I heard was on a Mustang, and it was too
much noise for me. I have a Borla on my 4.0 Ranger and while it's
definitely louder, it's a mellower tone until the revs get higher. I liked
it better than the Flowmasters, which reminded me more of glasspack sound
than anything. Plus, the Borla system is completely Stainless, so it's the
last exhaust I'll ever have to crawl under and replace, and the finned tips
are cool looking. I found that the K&N (with the stock air box) made a
more noticable difference than the exhaust in passing acceleration, but I
had already put the Borla on, so probably the increased breathing was due
to overall better system air flow.

Dave Armbruster

>Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:36:04 -0600
>From: Dave McDonald
>To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
>Subject: mo' power :)
>Message-Id:
>Content-Type: text
>
>Hiya all,
>
> I'm new on the list, and I'm sure that this subject has been
>beaten to death, but I'm looking into mods to make to my '90 F250HD,
>351, 5spd. I'm looking for more mileage and if I can get more
>highway-Colorado-pass-climbing power it'd be a great bonus.
>
> So far I've decide to do a K&N filter and box, larger
>throttle body, probably a new intake manifold, and a larger
>cat back exhaust system with a crossover in front of the mufflers
>(Prolly Flow master, I'm hopin they aren't to loud). I might look
>into one of those multifire ignition systems.
>
> Anyone done any of these things? How did it turn out?
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Dave McDonald
>

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 22:36:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: ksbdj00 tamuk.edu (Johnson Bradford Durkee)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: mo' power :)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text

I own a 95 ford truck and my mileage increased considerablly with a
filter charger (replaces the factory airbox). This allowed me to drive at
70 vs. 55 without killing the miles per gallon. This is a stock engine
with a 5-speed. As far as I know aftermarket intakes are expensive and
don't offer better mileage vs. cost I would try headers and a cat back
exhaust and chip with possablly bigger t/b. Allow your truck is
speed-density and not mass-air so be conservitve on the changes. Finally
use a bed cover it will help lots!!!

Brad Johnson
Houston, Texas------ksbdj00 tamuk.edu

Texas A& I Kingsville, Texas

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 23:28:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: ksbdj00 tamuk.edu (Johnson Bradford Durkee)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: power sliding window
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text

I have a powerslider rear window for my truck and the bracket that is
attached to the sliding glas keeps coming unglued. Does any one have
ideas on what would fix this? or the manufactures address? The window
works great when the bracket is still glued to the window. I bought it
used from a store that has since got away . Any help out there. What
about drilling a hole in the glass it is tempered ? I have no idea but
would like to lock my truck and have piece of mind.
Brad Johnson
Houston, Texas------ksbdj00 tamuk.edu

Texas A& I Kingsville, Texas

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 21:07:43 -0700
From: John Fleming
To: FORD TRUCK PAGE
Subject: trouble shooting
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am the proud owner of an '86 F150 Lariat SuperCab PU. It's
powered by
a stock injected 5.0 with an AOD trans. While a little wimpy
in the HP
department it's been an EXCELLENT truck. At 180,000 miles it
still runs
nearly as good as new. I do have some minor problems that
have cropped
up over the years and would like to hear of anyone elses
symptoms and
remedys.

I was a very happy boy in the early days of ownership. I was
getting 17
to 20 mpg on my twice-weekly L.A. trips at 70mph and that
was with a
full load (aprox 2000#). Around town I got a steady 16mpg!
Then I took
my baby in for the initial recommended "tune up". Ever since
that "tune
down" I have been getting 12.5mpg up hill-down
hill-city-freeway-desert-towing you name it. I get no
better/no worse.
The Ford dealers say there is nothing wrong and it always
passes smog.
Any ideas????

Another puzzler is the rear brakes. I just replaced the rear
shoes about
3 months ago (out of boredom). As I said earlier my truck
has 180,000
miles and these were the orginal rear shoes! I've replaced
the front
pads many times and the rotors once as well as master
cylinder (4) and
proportioning valve (1) but the rear brakes only seem to be
used for
parking brakes.

The only other trouble spot is the rough idle. I've done
everything in
the book except change out the distributor itself and the
idle is still
rough and will die if I slip into neutral.

Last question: I'm thinking about putting something a bit
more powerful
under the hood. Whether I build up the 302 or maybe try to
slip a 351W
in under the EPA noses I haven't decided. Any advice
considering the
newer smog laws?????

THANKS

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 04:12:37 +0000
From: swordsc db.erau.edu
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: 88 ranger
Message-Id:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Now thinking about doing a homemade ram air. Any suggestions? Any one
done it before? How do I go about getting a catalog for ill sho u
performance?

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 00:59:12 -0800
From: Ben Markert
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: mo' power :)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:36 PM 7/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
> I own a 95 ford truck and my mileage increased considerablly with a
>filter charger (replaces the factory airbox). This allowed me to drive at
>70 vs. 55 without killing the miles per gallon. This is a stock engine
>with a 5-speed. As far as I know aftermarket intakes are expensive and
>don't offer better mileage vs. cost I would try headers and a cat back
>exhaust and chip with possablly bigger t/b. Allow your truck is
>speed-density and not mass-air so be conservitve on the changes. Finally
>use a bed cover it will help lots!!!
>
> Brad Johnson
>Houston, Texas------ksbdj00 tamuk.edu
>
>Texas A& I Kingsville, Texas
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>
>
It also helps to have an Overdrive ratio.
============================================================================
The ULTIMATE Duke Nukem 3D: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/5290
The Xena Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/2050

Ben Markert
Lord Radu Lykan, The Collector
"If it makes you feel good, do it!"

"Power is absolute. Power is corrupting.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"Act. Don't react." - Xena

"What a wonderful thing Humanity is. Passoinate, intelligent, noble of spirit
and above all.....Delicious." - LaCroix

PROUD Ford owner: 1982 F-250 300 I-6 4on the floor, name: Lila.
E-Mail:timberwolf deathsdoor.com, ze-wolf geocities.com,
radulykan geocities.com
============================================================================

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 11:14:56 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: trouble shooting
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

John Fleming,

I also replaced the rear shoes on my F-150 last year, "out of boredom".
They had 169,220 miles on them so I figured they probably needed to be
changed, even though they still had 3/32" over the rivits. What I found
was that one piston in each of the rear wheel cylinders was frozen. (I mean
I put them in my big vice and could not make them move...that must be why
the shoes lasted so long. :-0

Yesterday I hooked up my Mighty-Mite vacuum pump to my power brake booster
and could not pump up amy vacuum. The power brakes seem to work fine, but
if I stall the engine, I *immediately* loose my power brakes. I think that
I may have found a very big vacuum leak!....probably why I seem to be
running lean....and getting excellent fuel mileage. I am going to change out
the power brake unit (unless someone can tell me that I chould not be able
to pump a vacuum into the booster unit.)

Now if _your_ power brake booster is leaking, and your engine is EEC-IV
controlled (mine is a carbed '79), could that cause your rough idle, or
would the EEC just compensate for the _big leak_ by adding more fuel?
(Where did my mpg go?) Maybe we could hear from some EEC gurus?

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:24:42 -0400
From: Kenneth Overton
To: Ford Trucks
Subject: 94 Ranger Problem
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I own a 1994 Ranger with a 3.0. Engine is stock except for plugs. Up
until about 4 months ago I had been having no problems. On a trip from
Arizona to Alabama, (2nd day of trip), the check engine light came on.
The light would come on and go off at no particular time or speed. I....

---

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.