97up-list-digest Tuesday, October 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 251



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1997 and Newer Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 97up-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions
Re: FTE 97up - differential
Re: FTE 97up - '99 f550
FTE 97up - sub box
RE: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions
FTE 97up - Short Box for 99 SD
Re: FTE 97up - Short Box for 99 SD
FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l
Re: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l
Re: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions
FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)
FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)
Re: FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)
FTE 97up - Replacement antenna for F-150
Re: FTE 97up - Replacement antenna for F-150
FTE 97up - Piston slap in 4.6L?
Re: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l
FTE 97up - ETE 97up - differential
Re: FTE 97up - Auto-trans change-out volume

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:43:24 -0400
From: Jean Marc Chartier
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions

Scott and Lisa Williams wrote:

> i am glad that everyone had their fun with my question about lowering my
> f-150 4x4. thanks to those that e-mailed me directly with your advice - i
> am still working on it. as far as the rest of you that questioned my
> reasoning for lowering my ride, the answer is this - because it's my truck
> and i want to. i believe my previous question was seeking answers from
> those who have had experience or knowledge of the difficulty in lowering a
> 4x4 - not for anyone's personal opinion on whether or not i should do it.
> so, once again, i will pose this question - does anyone know where i can
> find TECHNICAL info. about lowering a 4x4 without sacrificing the truck's
> inherent abilities?
>

Scott & Lisa, Right on It is your truck... Have you tried Bell Tech Inc.?
2822 E.California Ave, Fresno, CA. 209-455-1199 fax 209-455-5897
Send some pictures when you are done.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:12:16 -0700
From: alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - differential

> I'm guessing the pressurization effect is because the differential is
> hot from turning. So if you are driving and stop in water, the differential
> will rapidly cool producing suction. Where as if you keep moving in deep
> water you are producing enough heat to keep a suctioning effect from
> starting and with out suction the water cannot make it up the bend in the
> hose. So it's not really pressurizing but that describes it good enough.

But the original question was about launching a boat ... unless you have
a unique launch technique, then keeping the differential spinning fast enough
to generate the heat is not an option...

- ---

Alan Hepburn | |
National Semiconductor | Proud to be part of the |
Santa Clara, Ca | Vast Right Wing Conspiracy |
alanh galaxy.nsc.com | |
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 12:44:26 -0500
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - '99 f550

Normally I'd agree with the "Feed the horses" theory, but with diesels it
seems the more power they make the better mileage they get. (compare a 7.3L
to a 7.3L turbo, the turbo does better, not true on gasoline engines). I
don't think there is a backpressure problem, the exhaust should be plenty
big enough. The wastegate is adjustable, but the computer will just
compensate to eliminate your adjustment. From what I've seen the Chip seems
to make an incredible difference (on the PSD, but I wasn't impressed by the
5.4L chip), but be careful, the reason they don't come from the factory this
way has more to do with transmission and u joint reliability than mileage
concerns. The chip doesn't fool the computer it gives it new fuel and
timing curves that makes more power (in other word its like turning the pump
up)

Nathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bob Illingworth
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - '99 f550


>Thanks for the reply:
>My understanding is "there's no free lunch" if you make more HP you use
more
>fuel? Plese tell me how this chip fools the computer?
>If a chip for the 5 big ones works why won't a new ford computer for a
>smaller vevicle work?
>When you could rework pumps more performance could be atained but can you
>fool these new computers?
>Ive been told that they monitor exhaust system BACK PRESSURE change it and
>the performance is drastically impaired. Question for Nathan.
>I have never complained of lack of power this thing has plenty.
>By the way how big is a 5" muffler for one of these systems. Ive seen a 5"
>truck muffler and I don't want something this size dragging the ground from
>my truck. Any info on diameter?
>
>Thanks for the help:
>
>Bob I


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:38:44 -0400
From: steve
Subject: FTE 97up - sub box

List
I thought I would respond to the sub woofer box question and
responses that were posted. I am a MECP certified car stereo
installer. I have had numerous jobs building and installing sub woofer
boxes, so I thought I would let you in on some of info that I have
received.

>as far as your amp goes, if you
>were only running one sub, you wouldn't need a huge amp to power it.
you
>could use a smaller amp and bridge it to bring the load level to
amp,
>which would increase your power without sacrificing sound quality
(which
>isn't THAT significant if you're running your sub 80 ohms or less).
hope
>this helps.

First of all I think you mean to bring the resistance level to 1 OHM.
This is fine, but you must make sure your amp is capable of handling a 1
ohm load. Many less expensive amplifiers will not be able to handle
this load. Also I think you mean if your running your sub 80 HERTZ or
less. Ohms have nothing to do with wound quality. Sound quality is not
affected by what point the crossover is set at. It is affected by what
sound the speaker is capable of reproducing and the most important
factor in sound quality is the THD(total harmonic distortion) of the
amplifier. As long as the THD is below .01 then this sound is not
audible to the human ear and therefore there should be no audible
degradation of sound quality.
If you are going to build your own box there are a couple of things
you should know. Speakers are designed to operate efficiently in a
certain amount of airspace, so if you are not sure on how to figure the
correct airspace then have a professional build the box. Make
absolutely sure that your box is sealed air tight. Use a lot of screws
and liquid nails to attach the box together and then use clear SILICONE
caulk to caulk all the joints as an extra measure of protection. Each
speaker should have its own sealed compartment. If the box is not
sealed completely or two speakers are in the same compartment you may
damage your speakers.
If anyone has any questions please e-mail me privately. Sorry for
the long post.

Steve
97 F150 4x4 5.4l

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:37:26 -0500
From: Steven_Bonds dell.com
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions

The Belltech F150 Flareside is a 4x2 with the 4x4 front bumper and fog
lights. It is not a 4x4.

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Walker [mailto:walkeja1 wku.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 2:41 PM
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions


Scott and Lisa,

Ignore the others, there's nothing wrong with wanting to lower your 4x4.
In fact, companies such as Belltech are starting to make kits that
"properly" lower 4x4 trucks and SUV's. They have a new 4x4 lowering kit on
there website (www.belltechcorp.com, go to "What's New") that lowers GM
trucks 1 to 5 inches. I didn't see a kit listed for Ford, but I am sure it
is available. They have a lowered 4x4 F150 Flareside pictured on there
website. I would drop them an e-mail. I hope this helps.

John Walker

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 15:49:47 EDT
From: SAM6359 aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - Short Box for 99 SD

Are the 99 SD's regular cab available with a short box?
Thanks
Sam Pratt
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:09:10 -0500
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Short Box for 99 SD

No the Shortbox is only available with the Super cab or Crew cab in a Super
Duty F-series (F-250 and 350 only)

Nathan Bernard
Union Auto, Inc.
Union, IA 50258

- -----Original Message-----
From: SAM6359 aol.com
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 3:05 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - Short Box for 99 SD


>Are the 99 SD's regular cab available with a short box?
>Thanks
>Sam Pratt
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:22:09 -0400
From: Dick_Dorff baynetworks.com (Dick Dorff)
Subject: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhh.

The 5.4l engine in the '99 Super Duty line is not the newly
revised one that the Light Duty line is getting! According to
two dealers and the '99 brochures (horsepower and torque ratings
for the S/D), the '99 S/D is using the '98 5.4l, with the
original hp and torque ratings (235hp and 335 ft. lb. torque),
and with, I wonder, the potential for the cold-engine piston-slap
problem that some have cited on the F150 Online message board.

They speculated that the reason the S/D comes with the old engine
is that the '99 S/D line was introduced very early in '98 (Feb?),
and that we're actually still in the same model year, therefore
they haven't changed engines yet. The dealers stated that they
don't know when the S/Ds will get the new 260hp, 345 fl. lb
torque 5.4l in place of the original design; maybe a mid-model
year change, maybe not until the next model year, 2000. I can
somewhat understand how this came to be, if any of what I've been
told is true, but the net result is absolutely insane; put the
less powerful engine in the heavier Super Duty, and the more
powerful 5.4l in the lighter Light Duty. Great if you want a L/D
for racing; lousy if you want a S/D for towing.

I was all set to decide on the S/D 250 instead of a L/D 250 since
we plan on towing a small 5th wheel, and since our weekend test
drives showed that my wife found the S/D 250 ride and driving
characteristics to be tolerable, if not desirable, when compared
to the LD 250. Now, I'm stuck. I don't want to get the old 5.4l
in case there's a chance of getting a cold engine piston slap
problem, and, because I could really use the extra torque at a
lower RPM of the newer ('99 L/D) 5.4l for towing. I'd rather not
get the L/D because for towing a 5th wheel, I like the idea of
the full-floating rear (& front) axle of the S/D for strength and
longevity (the L/D rear axle is just semi-floating).

Ugh. Anyone know when the new 5.4l will be put in the Super
Duty?

Dick (my wife we'll kill me if I stretch this long truck search
process out any further, especially "indefinately") Dorff

or

Dick (just when I had every decision point decided upon) Dorff

Groton, MA



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:02:11 -0500
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l

I asked Ford this question and didn't really get an answer. I would expect
it in the 2000 model year. I doubt you'll see it this year unless Chevy
replaces the 350 with the new 5.3 (then The 5.4L would need the additional
power to retain bragging rights). As for the Piston slap problem I have yet
to have a truck act up so I wouldn't get too worried about it.

Nathan Bernard
Union Auto, Inc.
Union, IA 50258

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dick Dorff
To: 97up ; f150
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:38 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l


>Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhh.
>
>The 5.4l engine in the '99 Super Duty line is not the newly
>revised one that the Light Duty line is getting! According to
>two dealers and the '99 brochures (horsepower and torque ratings
>for the S/D), the '99 S/D is using the '98 5.4l, with the
>original hp and torque ratings (235hp and 335 ft. lb. torque),
>and with, I wonder, the potential for the cold-engine piston-slap
>problem that some have cited on the F150 Online message board.
>
>They speculated that the reason the S/D comes with the old engine
>is that the '99 S/D line was introduced very early in '98 (Feb?),
>and that we're actually still in the same model year, therefore
>they haven't changed engines yet. The dealers stated that they
>don't know when the S/Ds will get the new 260hp, 345 fl. lb
>torque 5.4l in place of the original design; maybe a mid-model
>year change, maybe not until the next model year, 2000. I can
>somewhat understand how this came to be, if any of what I've been
>told is true, but the net result is absolutely insane; put the
>less powerful engine in the heavier Super Duty, and the more
>powerful 5.4l in the lighter Light Duty. Great if you want a L/D
>for racing; lousy if you want a S/D for towing.
>
>I was all set to decide on the S/D 250 instead of a L/D 250 since
>we plan on towing a small 5th wheel, and since our weekend test
>drives showed that my wife found the S/D 250 ride and driving
>characteristics to be tolerable, if not desirable, when compared
>to the LD 250. Now, I'm stuck. I don't want to get the old 5.4l
>in case there's a chance of getting a cold engine piston slap
>problem, and, because I could really use the extra torque at a
>lower RPM of the newer ('99 L/D) 5.4l for towing. I'd rather not
>get the L/D because for towing a 5th wheel, I like the idea of
>the full-floating rear (& front) axle of the S/D for strength and
>longevity (the L/D rear axle is just semi-floating).
>
>Ugh. Anyone know when the new 5.4l will be put in the Super
>Duty?
>
>Dick (my wife we'll kill me if I stretch this long truck search
>process out any further, especially "indefinately") Dorff
>
>or
>
>Dick (just when I had every decision point decided upon) Dorff
>
>Groton, MA
>
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 19:59:24 EDT
From: F150DML aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: suspension questions

I proudly own a f-150 4X4 why in God's Holy name would you want to lower
anything much less a OFF ROAD vehicle. The whole point of having 4X4 is going
off-road where clearance is very important. If you feel the need to be a
brother and lower a truck get a 4X2. That is a disgrace to consider lowering
a 4X4, why did you get it? You cannot take it off-road once you have lowered
it, like you said its your truck do as you wish. That is my two cents worth.
David
Proud owner of a real 4x4 OFF-ROAD
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:40:54 -0000
From: "John R. Mohme"
Subject: FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)

Just installed BFG 295/16 AT's on American Eagle 589's this morning on my
'99 F-250SD 5.4L 2x. They fit perfectly with no suspension modifications.
No "hits" lock to lock when turning, in fact, clearance is only 1/4" less
than 265's on Ford "Alcoas". Vertical travel remains well clear at the
bumper, even at full turn, approximately 1" less than the 265's.

I am, however, adding coils which will increase the front end lift 2", and
are stiffer to prevent sag, to "flatten" the truck's look. They are
absolutely not needed to use these tires, though.

"Just because they're bigger."

John R.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:46:54 -0000
From: "John R. Mohme"
Subject: FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)

Just installed BFG 295/16 AT's on American Eagle 589's Saturday on my
'99 F-250SD 5.4L 2x. They fit perfectly with no suspension modifications.
No "hits" lock to lock when turning, in fact, clearance is only 1/4" less
than 265's on Ford "Alcoas". Vertical travel remains well clear at the
bumper, even at full turn, approximately 1" less than the 265's.

I am, however, adding coils which will increase the front end lift 2", and
are stiffer to prevent sag, to "flatten" the truck's look. They are
absolutely not needed to use these tires, though.

"Just because they're bigger."

John R.



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 06:32:45 -0700
From: geoff campbell
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - BFG 285-16-75 AT's (Trying Again)

Do you know what the offset is on the American Eagle 589s? Would this mean
that the PSD crew cab F-250SD would fit them with those wheels as well. I
guess my question is are the wheel wells, suspension and lift exactly the same
as on the F-250SD 5.4?

Geoff Campbell
99 F-250SD PSD Crew cab


John R. Mohme wrote:

> Just installed BFG 295/16 AT's on American Eagle 589's this morning on my
> '99 F-250SD 5.4L 2x. They fit perfectly with no suspension modifications.
> No "hits" lock to lock when turning, in fact, clearance is only 1/4" less
> than 265's on Ford "Alcoas". Vertical travel remains well clear at the
> bumper, even at full turn, approximately 1" less than the 265's.
>
> I am, however, adding coils which will increase the front end lift 2", and
> are stiffer to prevent sag, to "flatten" the truck's look. They are
> absolutely not needed to use these tires, though.
>
> "Just because they're bigger."
>
> John R.
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:21:45 -0400
From: Lou Mallia
Subject: FTE 97up - Replacement antenna for F-150

My new 1999 F-150 4x4 fits in my garage, but the darn radio antenna is
too tall and will really scrape up the door molding and underside of the
garage door unless I remove (unscrew) it before entering the garage.
This is getting to be a real drag. Does anyone know of a shorter
replacement antenna mast that might make my life simple and let me use
the existing Ford antenna base? I'd prefer not to have to replace the
entire antenna assembly if possible. I'd consider cutting the existing
antenna, but it seems to be a shaft wrapped with some sort of conductor
(wire?) and I'm not sure whether it would work if cut down.

Thanks,
Lou

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:48:29 -0500
From: "Jack"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Replacement antenna for F-150

Dont' hold me to this but what your referring to as a conductor wire is
simply there to cut down on the wind noise from the antenna. I saw several
months ago on this list that someone cut their's for the same reason and had
no problems.

good luck

Jack
99 F-150 XLT SC FS 4.6 LSD
former 97 F-150 XLT SC SS 4.2


- -----Original Message-----
From: Lou Mallia
To: Ford Trucks
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:22 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - Replacement antenna for F-150


>My new 1999 F-150 4x4 fits in my garage, but the darn radio antenna is
>too tall and will really scrape up the door molding and underside of the
>garage door unless I remove (unscrew) it before entering the garage.
>This is getting to be a real drag. Does anyone know of a shorter
>replacement antenna mast that might make my life simple and let me use
>the existing Ford antenna base? I'd prefer not to have to replace the
>entire antenna assembly if possible. I'd consider cutting the existing
>antenna, but it seems to be a shaft wrapped with some sort of conductor
>(wire?) and I'm not sure whether it would work if cut down.
>
>Thanks,
>Lou
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:24:41 -0500
From: "Mike Fairleigh"
Subject: FTE 97up - Piston slap in 4.6L?

Has anyone (Nathan?) heard of the piston slap problem existing in the 4.6l
engines? My '98 F-150 SC makes a sort of "diesel-like" sound - especially
when cold, less so when warm. It was built in November of '97 and I've run
Mobile1 since 4,000 miles.

Also, at all temps, there is a regular clicking sound. From inside the
truck, the clicking is inaudible, but outside it's very noticeable. If I'm
sitting, for example, in a fast food drive-thru, the click is very distinct
as it bounces off the building's walls.

The truck runs great in terms of power, smoothness, etc. But I'm concerned
that there might be a problem (two?) that won't be more obvious until, you
know, 36,001 miles. Thanks for any advice/input.

Mike Fairleigh
mikef sky.net
...Always remembering their sacrifices.



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 23:27:03 -0400
From: "Todd E."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - S/D 5.4l

You have to take into account that the 99 SD brochures were created for the
March launch of the SD. Ford will not make 2 different 5.4L engines.
Expect the new SDs to have the same engine as the new F-150s. Ford isn't
going to run a whole new printing of their sales brochures for this
particular change.

Dick Dorff wrote:

> Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhh.
>
> The 5.4l engine in the '99 Super Duty line is not the newly
> revised one that the Light Duty line is getting! According to
> two dealers and the '99 brochures (horsepower and torque ratings
> for the S/D), the '99 S/D is using the '98 5.4l, with the
> original hp and torque ratings (235hp and 335 ft. lb. torque),
> and with, I wonder, the potential for the cold-engine piston-slap
> problem that some have cited on the F150 Online message board.
>
> They speculated that the reason the S/D comes with the old engine
> is that the '99 S/D line was introduced very early in '98 (Feb?),
> and that we're actually still in the same model year, therefore
> they haven't changed engines yet. The dealers stated that they
> don't know when the S/Ds will get the new 260hp, 345 fl. lb
> torque 5.4l in place of the original design; maybe a mid-model
> year change, maybe not until the next model year, 2000. I can
> somewhat understand how this came to be, if any of what I've been
> told is true, but the net result is absolutely insane; put the
> less powerful engine in the heavier Super Duty, and the more
> powerful 5.4l in the lighter Light Duty. Great if you want a L/D
> for racing; lousy if you want a S/D for towing.
>
> I was all set to decide on the S/D 250 instead of a L/D 250 since
> we plan on towing a small 5th wheel, and since our weekend test
> drives showed that my wife found the S/D 250 ride and driving
> characteristics to be tolerable, if not desirable, when compared
> to the LD 250. Now, I'm stuck. I don't want to get the old 5.4l
> in case there's a chance of getting a cold engine piston slap
> problem, and, because I could really use the extra torque at a
> lower RPM of the newer ('99 L/D) 5.4l for towing. I'd rather not
> get the L/D because for towing a 5th wheel, I like the idea of
> the full-floating rear (& front) axle of the S/D for strength and
> longevity (the L/D rear axle is just semi-floating).
>
> Ugh. Anyone know when the new 5.4l will be put in the Super
> Duty?
>
> Dick (my wife we'll kill me if I stretch this long truck search
> process out any further, especially "indefinately") Dorff
>
> or
>
> Dick (just when I had every decision point decided upon) Dorff
>
> Groton, MA
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:43:53 -0700
From: "Robert Loer"
Subject: FTE 97up - ETE 97up - differential

The check valve in the differential vent line can cause another problem. The
seals on the axle are all effective in one direction only. They keep what is
in from leaking out. Put a check valve in the vent line, cool off suddenly
because of water immersion and presto....negative pressure in the
differential causes water to be sucked in past the axle seals.

Best bet...run vent tube as high as possible under the bed such as up under
the bed rail and change the lube in the differential if there is any chance
you got water in it. Cheap insurance.



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:26:47 -0700
From: "vossdanpam"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Auto-trans change-out volume

You or any shop might want to try a complete transmission fluid change. It
is easy if
you follow the guide lines in a chat group article of the Power Stroke
Diesel web site. It is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.abol.com/users/jlester where you click on
"chat" then "power stroke diesel conference 2" and search for "trans temp
(aka atf change how-to). It is article #6698. Far easier than fooling
around with the converter. I did this on my Explorer that burned the fluid
due to a faulty throttle position sensor (locked and unlocked the converter
constantly). The fluid ran out dark brown until all the required capacity
plus one quart had run out as I poured fresh fluid in and then it turned a
nice bright red.
Good Luck,
Dan
Washington the State

>
> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 10:45:13 -0700
> From: Ken Peterson
> Subject: FTE 97up - Auto-trans chageout volume
>
> Having treated other vehicles I own to fine synthetic lubes, with fine
> results, I want to exchange the lube in my E4OD auto with Red Line ATF.
>
> There is this problem with how many changes it takes to get, say, below
15
> or 20% original oil. The capacity is listed as 16 quarts. But what drains
> out on a change?
>
> The dealerships I've asked are real dumb about this; some aren't even
aware
> that there's a drain plug for the torque converter! (I have the %$#&!!
> expensive shop-manual set.)
>
> Does anyone have good information on the changeout volume for (a) pulling
> the pan and changing the filter, plus (b) draining the torque converter?....

---

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.