97up-list-digest Saturday, October 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 263



=======================================================================
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 - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Re: FTE 97up - Vibration complaints?
FTE 97up - 1999 Mazda B2500 Accessories
FTE 97up - Heavy service suspension
Re: FTE 97up - 1999 Mazda B2500 Accessories
Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Re: FTE 97up - Still Waiting for my F-350 Crew PSD DRW...
Re: FTE 97up - Heavy service suspension
FTE 97up - ADMIN: New offroad truck list
Re[2]: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
FTE 97up - Mileage
FTE 97up - Mileage
FTE 97up - Mileage
Re: FTE 97up -ESOF
Re: FTE 97up - Re: tire pressures
Re: FTE 97up - Vibration complaints?
Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
FTE 97up - metal shavings in diff
FTE 97up - Towing and Camping
Re: FTE 97up -ESOF
Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Re: FTE 97up -ESOF
Re: FTE 97up -ESOF
Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Re: FTE 97up -ESOF

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:17:52 -0500
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had
one. They can be great and they can be a pain. The 99 automatic hubs are supposedly a lot
better and definitely completely different. The only thing I don't like about them is you
have to get the electronic transfer case to get them. So I stuck to all manual.

"Todd E." wrote:

> I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to convince me not
> to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:39:54 -0500
From: Jean Marc Chartier
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Vibration complaints?

Ken Peterson wrote:
>
> >This problem has been driving me nuts for a couple weeks now. After
> >my truck hit about 600 miles I began to notice it. It "resonates"
> >in any gear when the tach enters the 1600-1700 RPM range.
> >I now have about 1200 miles on my '98 F150 SC 4x4 ORP 5.4l.
>
> Woops! This has to be a different problem.
>
> If the vibration is *tach* dependent, it can't be the driveline, since it
> rotates at a speed that's totally vehicle-speed dependent. Only rotating
> machinery *ahead* of the transmission (including the torque converter) is
> measured by the tach.
>
> Maybe you have an engine imbalance, and I certainly would raise hell. And
> why after 600 mi?? That would worry me: what has changed? My 5.4l V8 is
> butter smooth all the way up to the upper rev limit.
>
> ---------------
> Ken Peterson, Portland, OR
> 1998 F-250LD Lariat, extended cab, short bed, 4X2, 5.4l, class-3 tow options
> LT245X16/steel rims, 4W disks + ABS, load-leveling rear suspension.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


A quick check is to remove the serpentine belt and test at
1600- 1700 rpm. ( do not run the engine for very long with
the belt off as you have no water pump.) If it still
vibrates the crank shaft pulley/damper is most likely to
blame. If no vibration occurs the probable cause is one of
the belt driven accessories.

Regards

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:05:48 -0800
From: "Michael D. Sheridan"
Subject: FTE 97up - 1999 Mazda B2500 Accessories

Folks:

Looking for a website that might have running boards,
pusher bars and so on for new Mazda pick up.

Much thanks for any help.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:44:31 -0600
From: ywozniak kiwi.dep.anl.gov (Todd Wozniak)
Subject: FTE 97up - Heavy service suspension

Is the heavy service suspension package for SD an option worth considering
if I have ordered a 250SD CC SW SB V10 3.73 with trailer tow package? I'm
NOT a fifth wheeler, or snow plower and I've heard that this is where one
would need it the most. This would add heavy rear springs, and heavy front
springs. Is this going to roughen up the ride or is it not noticeable.

Thanks for any advice,

Todd Wozniak


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:34:37 -0500
From: Jean Marc Chartier
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 1999 Mazda B2500 Accessories

"Michael D. Sheridan" wrote:
>
> Folks:
>
> Looking for a website that might have running boards,
> pusher bars and so on for new Mazda pick up.
>
> Much thanks for any help.
>
> Michael
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Michael,

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

Regards

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:44:26 -0500
From: "Todd E."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

You were just looking at one issue. Look way back (months ago) and you will see what I was
referring to.

Chad Royse wrote:

> I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had
> one. They can be great and they can be a pain. The 99 automatic hubs are supposedly a lot
> better and definitely completely different. The only thing I don't like about them is you
> have to get the electronic transfer case to get them. So I stuck to all manual.
>
> "Todd E." wrote:
>
> > I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to convince me not
> > to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/
>
> == 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: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 10:57:24 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Still Waiting for my F-350 Crew PSD DRW...

If you have the DORA or order confirmation sheet I can get the delivery
date, but the dealer would be the only way (that I know of) to get the VIN.
The trip computer doesn't have instant mileage, just average.

Nathan Bernard
Union Auto, Inc.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary Newlin
To: 97up-list-digest
Cc: Fred Watson
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Still Waiting for my F-350 Crew PSD DRW...


>Thanks to Nathan and all the others who responded. I have found that
>this list consistantly has better and more accurate information than my
>dealer does.
>
>Now that I understand what "Scheduled" means in Ford-speak, I have a
>couple of other questions...
>
>Is there a way that I can find out what my VIN is other than by going
>through my dealer?
>
>This may sound like a strange request, but after the past six months of
>only calling him once every few weeks, he is less and less interested in
>spending any time getting an answer to my simple question; "When will I
>find out my delivery date?" I realize that he's not going to make much
>on this deal, but after all, I'm getting ready to spend around $38,000
>or so for this truck, and I don't think the question is out of line. No
>doubt he would rather not hear from me untill he calls me to tell me to
>bring him his money because my truck has finally arrived. Were it not
>for your replies yesterday, I wouldn't expect this to happen untill
>mid-winter, 2003 or so.
>
>Two other questions;
>
>First, does the trip computer have an instantaineous fuel mileage
>display, and is it equipped with both interior and exterior temperature
>readouts?
>
>Thanks again for your help. gcn
>
>== 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: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 12:50:03 -0500
From: Dick_Dorff baynetworks.com (Dick Dorff)
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Heavy service suspension

The answer lies in how close your anticipated maximimum payload comes to the
payload rating for the non-extra-suspension-package truck. You have to add up
your anticipated maximum payload, and compare that to the ratings for the
various truck configurations (see the brochure) you're considering, and figure
out how close to the payload rating you're comfortable in going. Some say
85%, others say 100%, others say over. I side with the "under" crowd, and with
a hitch manufacturer technician I've talked to, and prefer a margin of safety.
Remeber to include optional equipment (like larger engine, auto, trim pkg, two
pkg), people, cargo, hitch weight, loaded trailer tongue weight, etc. in
estimating your payload.

The extra suspension has to make the ride a stiffer; but by how much I don't
know. I didn't notice a huge difference between test drives of a SD F350 vs.
an SD F250, but they were somewhat different configurations, on different
roads, on different days. It'd have to be done back-to-back I think.

Note also that the Suspension Pkg is "Recommended Only on Vehicles Which Will
Permanently Utilize H.D. Aftermarket Equipment", according to the Kelley Blue
Book pricing guide.

So it looks like we ordered practically the identical vehicle, except I opted
for the 4x4 and ESOF. I think with our anticipated 5-er towing, we'll get
close, but not exceed the payload rating, but I feel pretty comfortable with
that in the Super Duties. I don't want the ride any stiffer than it is
already.

For what it's worth,

Dick Dorff

Todd Wozniak wrote:

> Is the heavy service suspension package for SD an option worth considering
> if I have ordered a 250SD CC SW SB V10 3.73 with trailer tow package? I'm
> NOT a fifth wheeler, or snow plower and I've heard that this is where one
> would need it the most. This would add heavy rear springs, and heavy front
> springs. Is this going to roughen up the ride or is it not noticeable.
>
> Thanks for any advice,
>



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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:52:28 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 97up - ADMIN: New offroad truck list

You asked for it, you got. The vote to add a off-road Ford
truck list won by a landslide. This list is now active.

This list is open to all Ford truck/van off-roading and 4x4
related topics. All years and models are allowed.

To s*bscribe send email to majordomo ford-trucks.com with
one of the following in the body of the message:

s*bscribe offroad-list

or

s*bscribe offroad-list-digest

(Replace the * with u)

The web site form does not have a s*bscribe/uns*bscribe
form on it yet. You can expect to see this form updated
this weekend.

Here we grow again!

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts



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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:17:25 -0500
From: kauppij vfc.com
Subject: Re[2]: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

You don't think my towing "problem" is for real? Hmmm... so how long
have you had your SD Dick? What's that? You don't even have it yet?
Geez, I just turned over 5,000 miles yesterday in my F350. Guess I
have a little more experience than most... And I don't think anything
is "wrong" with my truck. The V10 towing performance with the 3.73 is
just not as "powerful" as I'd hoped. That's it. Nothing more,
nothing less. I've timed several 0-60 runs in the mid 10's and that
is in the ball park for this combination. I'm looking to install the
Banks power pack system when ready which should add approx. 50hp and
65 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels. I've been told this will be
ready around Jan. 1. I've seen you commenting in every Super Duty
web site and listserv group there is so surely you must be an expert
by now and not in need of our help (especially those data skewers such
as myself). You personally emailed me the other day asking for more
information and I told you I was tired of writing about it but would
be happy to talk to you on the phone about it and gave you my work
800# with an offer to call. Instead of the call I find you on this
group dismissing my reports as one instance (of some guy who's out of
touch or something) and not giving any weight to it. Well, I hope you
don't have a vibration problem and that when towing your 6,000 lb.
fifth wheel that you can leave two black streaks from the stop light
to Yosemite. Have fun with your SD Dick and don't ask me for any more
information! Dorff does Super Dutys? Hmm... could be a video in the
making. Just make sure Tim Conway doesn't mind...


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?
Author: at Internet
Date: 10/29/98 2:26 PM




I, and from what I've read, most others who've responded to your towing performa
e
problem do believe that your problem is real. But, consensus is, so far as I
can tell, is that there is something wrong/defective with your particular truck.
It's acknowledged that it's a very hard problem to convince the dealer of
though, since it's somewhat subjective (ie "feels like towing performance is way
less than it should be"). However, people seem incredulous about the dropping
from 4.30 to 3 3
just killing a V10's towing capabilities being a general rule for that engine.
ve
heard that engine horsepower and torque can perhaps be measured on a dynometer.
I've no information on this, but perhaps you could check that out, with an
independent, and have the truck's power quantified by a machine. Anyone else
know of the existence of horsepower/torque measurers?

Still seeking more V10 + 3.73 (ltd slip, not that it should make a difference) i
a
SD 250 CC, SB, ESOF datapoints on vibrations or towing performance, but quite
appreciative of those received so far,

Dick Dorff

kauppij vfc.com wrote:

> Dick,
>
> Don't be too quick to dismiss first hand reports. There isn't a huge
> SD base out there yet and consequently you will not find as much
> information as you would on Ford Taurus' for example. The vibration
> problem is/was real. Whether it has been corrected is not known. I
> passed on buying an F250 SC 4x4 ESOF last month because the dealer
> told me it was in the shop to fix a vibration problem. I bought the
> manual hubs/transfer case instead. My reports on towing performance
> was real and factual. My truck did not meet my expectations. Is the
> towing performance unsatisfactory? Compared to a 4.6L F150, no...
> but it is subpar compared to my expectations. Most people praise
> whatever they own or just bought, no matter if it is a TV, camcorder,
> new car or boat. When someone has a complaint and voices it in a
> logical, descriptive way, I usually pay attention and will do extra
> research to track down additional information.
>
> Good luck and hope you enjoy your truck after delivery.
>
> Jim Kauppila
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator



> I saw on a msg board or two an instance or two of: 1)
> vibrations at certain RPMs (30-45 mph?) with this combo (SC, LB),
> and 2) unsatisfactory performance when towing weights in the
> 5-6000lb range. Again, this is one or two instances, so one
> can't place too much weight on them,.
>
> Any information on this combination with respect to vibrations,
> or towing performance, or mileage benefits? I've a couple
> positive reports of towing capabilities with the 4.30 ("a good
> match"), and one with the 3.73 ("just pop it out of OD for towing
> my 10,000lb trailer up grades"). I'd really like some more data
> points though; I'm uneasy. First-hand or second-hand
> experience, or opinions, are quite welcome.
>
> Thank you very much, in advance,
>
> Dick Dorff



== 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: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:39:16 -0500
From: Dick_Dorff baynetworks.com (Dick Dorff)
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

Todd,

I think I've been through that msg board top to bottom, reading every "vibration" thread, but I saw no correlation to ESOF there. Common among many are V10, 3.73, and the SC, LB or CC, SB wheelbase (which I think are the same) (obviously 99 SD related). Where is the ESOF correlation coming from? Both you and Jim Kauppila reference that correlation. Did I miss it, or is it in another message board. I've been through Edmunds Town Hall (except the "SD Delivery Issues"), F150 Online, and
chat.fourwheeler.com. Are there others (besides the Ford Diesel Web Page)?

Can anyone think of why the ESOF might contribute to a driveline vibration? Seems unlikely at first blush, but I'll defer to any experiences.

Thanks, I'm really trying to decide whether to ditch the ESOF, and whether to change the 3.73ls for a 4.30ls (w/ my V10 CC SB just ordered). The wife would really like the ESOF provided it works so she doesn't have to slog through the slush all the time. Me too, so I don't have to stop along the highway after the snow situation has changed enough to warrant locking/unlocking the hubs, provided it stays working. The biggest drawback is if it breaks, there's no way to engage the front drive
shaft. It's little consolation that the hubs can be manually overridden. I also really wish they had just the auto-hubs w/ manual override, and an option to leave the xfer case engaging manual. What are they thinking?

Dick Dorff.

Todd E. wrote:

> You were just looking at one issue. Look way back (months ago) and you will see what I was
> referring to.
>
> Chad Royse wrote:
>
> > I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had
> > one. They can be great and they can be a pain. The 99 automatic hubs are supposedly a lot
> > better and definitely completely different. The only thing I don't like about them is you
> > have to get the electronic transfer case to get them. So I stuck to all manual.
> >
> > "Todd E." wrote:
> >
> > > I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to convince me not
> > > to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/



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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:51:32 -0600
From: "shane o. conger"
Subject: FTE 97up - Mileage

Sorry about the sad result of my mileage chart, looked fine when I did
it but not on the list. I will try to correct this and repost.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:00:23 -0600
From: "shane o. conger"
Subject: FTE 97up - Mileage

Hello, haven't posted in a while. I got several messages from
individuals about the mileage I had posted that I was getting from my 98
F-150 4x2 SC SB 4.6l. Here are some updated mileage numbers.

Date Mileage Miles Gallons Cost MPG
8/18/98 7531 361.0 20.26 $21.25 17.82
8/25/98 7924 392.2 22.02 22.00 17.81
9/1/98 8288 364.0 20.27 20.25 17.96
9/6/98 8581 292.6 16.52 16.50 17.71
9/11/98 8952 368.6 20.52 20.50 17.96
9/17/98 9342 390.2 22.41 21.50 17.41
9/23/98 9739 397.4 22.27 22.25 17.84
9/27/98 10011 271.9 15.11 16.00 17.99
9/30/98 10355 343.8 19.83 21.00 17.34
10/7/98 10651 296.5 17.94 19.00 16.53
10/13/98 11006 347.1 20.30 21.50 17.10
10/19/98 11371 365.8 21.01 22.25 17.41
10/23/98 11596 224.5 13.14 13.00 17.08
10/29/98 11973 371.1 21.23 21.00 17.48



That's pretty well up to date on that. I drive 26 miles one way to
work, mostly secondary highway with some Peoria as well. Very happy
with the mileage so far and hopes it keeps up. As for the rest of the
truck, well, what can I say - It's a FORD.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:23:39 -0600
From: "shane o. conger"
Subject: FTE 97up - Mileage

Hello, haven't posted in a while. I got several messages from
individuals about the mileage I had posted that I was getting from my 98
F-150 4x2 SC SB 4.6l. Here are some updated mileage numbers.

Date Mileage Miles Gallons Cost MPG
8/18/98 7531 361.0 20.26 $21.25 17.82
8/25/98 7924 392.2 22.02 22.00 17.81
9/1/98 8288 364.0 20.27 20.25 17.96
9/6/98 8581 292.6 16.52 16.50 17.71
9/11/98 8952 368.6 20.52 20.50 17.96
9/17/98 9342 390.2 22.41 21.50 17.41
9/23/98 9739 397.4 22.27 22.25 17.84
9/27/98 10011 271.9 15.11 16.00 17.99
9/30/98 10355 343.8 19.83 21.00 17.34
10/7/98 10651 296.5 17.94 19.00 16.53
10/13/98 11006 347.1 20.30 21.50 17.10
10/19/98 11371 365.8 21.01 22.25 17.41
10/23/98 11596 224.5 13.14 13.00 17.08
10/29/98 11973 341.1 21.23 21.00 16.07


That's pretty well up to date on that. I drive 26 miles one way to
work, mostly secondary highway with some Peoria as well. Very happy
with the mileage so far and hopes it keeps up. As for the rest of the
truck, well, what can I say - It's a FORD.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:43:34 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up -ESOF

The ESOF problem was on vehicles built before 6-1-98. What happens is the
GEM module goes bad and doesn't run the 4x4 (or sticks in 4x4). I have had
two of my early SD's do this. It takes about an hour to correct the problem
(new GEM module). I wouldn't worry about getting a truck with ESOF now
though. Its definitely a better setup than the GM style hubs.

Nathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Todd E.
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?


>I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to
convince me not
>to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:07:49 EST
From: BLUESKY636 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: tire pressures

In a message dated 10/30/1998 12:40:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
kmp imagina.com writes:


softer ride at the expense of handling? Manufacturer's intended pressure
might intentionally result in greater contact pressure in the center of the
tread -- by design -- and equalizing the tread impression might lead to
underinflation. >>

The important thing to keep check of is the evenness of the pattern. A tread
like you describe would show a different pattern, but at the optimum pressure,
the contact patch would appear more even than with other pressures. Like I
said, it will work for any brand or type of tire. Some adjustments may be
necessary due to the shape of the tread. A bias ply tire will trend to show
more variation than a radial. The steel belts in the tread of a radial will
keep the pattern pretty consistent through a range of pressures, but it is
still possible to find the optimum, most even pattern.

Bill and Deb Haegele and Bets and Oliver (The Fourwheeling Puppies)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 20:52:38 EST
From: BigFords1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Vibration complaints?

Are the trucks that are having these problems have manual or atomatic
transmissions?


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:11:34 -0500
From: "Todd E."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

I never said the vibration problem had anything to do with the ESOF. There have been other failures related to the ESOF dealing with 4 wheel drive engagement. These problems have been attributed to the GEM. I don't know where you got the idea that the vibration issue was related..

Dick Dorff wrote:

> Todd,
>
> I think I've been through that msg board top to bottom, reading every "vibration" thread, but I saw no correlation to ESOF there. Common among many are V10, 3.73, and the SC, LB or CC, SB wheelbase (which I think are the same) (obviously 99 SD related). Where is the ESOF correlation coming from? Both you and Jim Kauppila reference that correlation. Did I miss it, or is it in another message board. I've been through Edmunds Town Hall (except the "SD Delivery Issues"), F150 Online, and
> chat.fourwheeler.com. Are there others (besides the Ford Diesel Web Page)?
>
> Can anyone think of why the ESOF might contribute to a driveline vibration? Seems unlikely at first blush, but I'll defer to any experiences.
>
> Thanks, I'm really trying to decide whether to ditch the ESOF, and whether to change the 3.73ls for a 4.30ls (w/ my V10 CC SB just ordered). The wife would really like the ESOF provided it works so she doesn't have to slog through the slush all the time. Me too, so I don't have to stop along the highway after the snow situation has changed enough to warrant locking/unlocking the hubs, provided it stays working. The biggest drawback is if it breaks, there's no way to engage the front drive
> shaft. It's little consolation that the hubs can be manually overridden. I also really wish they had just the auto-hubs w/ manual override, and an option to leave the xfer case engaging manual. What are they thinking?
>
> Dick Dorff.
>
> Todd E. wrote:
>
> > You were just looking at one issue. Look way back (months ago) and you will see what I was
> > referring to.
> >
> > Chad Royse wrote:
> >
> > > I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had
> > > one. They can be great and they can be a pain. The 99 automatic hubs are supposedly a lot
> > > better and definitely completely different. The only thing I don't like about them is you
> > > have to get the electronic transfer case to get them. So I stuck to all manual.
> > >
> > > "Todd E." wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to convince me not
> > > > to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> > > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/
>
> == 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: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:01:53 -0500
From: "T Ciarfello"
Subject: FTE 97up - metal shavings in diff

I have a 98 4x4 4.6l 3.55ls. at 2400miles I was over 4qts of oil short. no
leaks dealer changed oil and told me to keep an eye on it. at 5000miles I
changed the oil none missing. At 7100 I checked the oil little over a quart
low. I usually drive about 35miles to and from work each day about 75mph.
is this normal for these engines to burn about 1qt oil every 2000miles, I
have to take the truck in for the recalls should I mention this to them
again. Any input helpful

Thanks
tony

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:15:43 EST
From: BigFords1 aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - Towing and Camping

Last weeken me and my dad went to Indianola in Central Utah in our F-150 ext.
cab flare side 5.4, auto to haul cinderblock up to a campsite. We got there
about 6:00 p.m. There was a d*dge V-10 there. We loaded both trucks up 3
deep. About 84 blocks. The D*odge got an early start up the mountain, so I
tried to catch him before he got around the turn. The road is about 5 miles
long up some pretty steep hills. Well, the V-10 left us in the dust, but what
do you expect? We stayed the night on the top of the mountain. It froze that
night. I loved it. We got up early and ate breakfast. As we were finishing
our 'friends' pulled up in their 99 GMC Sie*ra 5.3 ext. cab short bed. We
drove down the mountain together and loaded up both trucks. We started first
but I stopped to make sure those new Gm's were worth anything. So once he
caught up i stuck it in 4 high and took off up the mountain. He said he was
going to race up. We lost sight of him a few times and I wasn't pushing the
engine at all. Once we got on a real steep grade and slowed down. Then it
geared down and jerked us up the hill like nothing. I was really impressed
with the 5.4.


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:16:59 EST
From: BigFords1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up -ESOF

What's ESOF?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:25:37 -0500
From: Dick_Dorff baynetworks.com (Dick Dorff)
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

Todd,

Apologies for the confusion. I originally read something, probably on one of the Edmunds msg boards, citing a correlation between ESOF and driveline vibrations as being based on the reading of other reports. I couldn't find those other first hand reports. I looked again at them now, ("Any Super Duty Owners"), and did see some messages where a correlation is suspected. Anyway, what caused me to think you also suspected a correlation was your previous (two ago) message.

Yesterday (10/29) Jim wrote in response to one of my emails,
"I passed on buying an F250 SC 4x4 ESOF last month because the dealer
told me it was in the shop to fix a vibration problem. I bought the
manual hubs/transfer case instead. "
He then went on to talk about the towing performance problem.

You then responded with :
"I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to
convince me not
to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/"
(also still at the tail end of this email)

I read your response as meaning the combination of ESOF and ltd slip caused a problem, and since it was probably not the towing performance problem, you must have been referring to the vibration problem. I now suspect you that you meant you've read of problems with ESOF and of problems with ltd slip, but not "ESOF and ltd slip", as in in combination with each other.

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

Dick.

PS.

Todd E. wrote:

> I never said the vibration problem had anything to do with the ESOF. There have been other failures related to the ESOF dealing with 4 wheel drive engagement. These problems have been attributed to the GEM. I don't know where you got the idea that the vibration issue was related..
>
> Dick Dorff wrote:
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I think I've been through that msg board top to bottom, reading every "vibration" thread, but I saw no correlation to ESOF there. Common among many are V10, 3.73, and the SC, LB or CC, SB wheelbase (which I think are the same) (obviously 99 SD related). Where is the ESOF correlation coming from? Both you and Jim Kauppila reference that correlation. Did I miss it, or is it in another message board. I've been through Edmunds Town Hall (except the "SD Delivery Issues"), F150 Online, and
> > chat.fourwheeler.com. Are there others (besides the Ford Diesel Web Page)?
> >
> > Can anyone think of why the ESOF might contribute to a driveline vibration? Seems unlikely at first blush, but I'll defer to any experiences.
> >
> > Thanks, I'm really trying to decide whether to ditch the ESOF, and whether to change the 3.73ls for a 4.30ls (w/ my V10 CC SB just ordered). The wife would really like the ESOF provided it works so she doesn't have to slog through the slush all the time. Me too, so I don't have to stop along the highway after the snow situation has changed enough to warrant locking/unlocking the hubs, provided it stays working. The biggest drawback is if it breaks, there's no way to engage the front drive
> > shaft. It's little consolation that the hubs can be manually overridden. I also really wish they had just the auto-hubs w/ manual override, and an option to leave the xfer case engaging manual. What are they thinking?
> >
> > Dick Dorff.
> >
> > Todd E. wrote:
> >
> > > You were just looking at one issue. Look way back (months ago) and you will see what I was
> > > referring to.
> > >
> > > Chad Royse wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had
> > > > one. They can be great and they can be a pain. The 99 automatic hubs are supposedly a lot
> > > > better and definitely completely different. The only thing I don't like about them is you
> > > > have to get the electronic transfer case to get them. So I stuck to all manual.
> > > >
> > > > "Todd E." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to convince me not
> > > > > to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> > > > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/
> >

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:39:52 -0500
From: Dick_Dorff baynetworks.com (Dick Dorff)
Subject: Re: FTE 97up -ESOF

BigFords1 aol.com wrote:

> What's ESOF?

Electronic Shift On the Fly. On Superduties anyway, flick the button from 2Hi to 4Lo or 4Hi, and it uses a vacuum mechanism to lock the hubs, and an electic mechanism to engage the front driveshaft at the transfer case. One claimed advantage is that you don't have to completely stop the vehicle to use it. (per the '99 brochure).

Dick.

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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:45:03 -0500
From: "Todd E."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up -ESOF

Electronic Shift On the Fly

BigFords1 aol.com wrote:

> What's ESOF?
> == 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: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 23:47:06 -0500
From: "Todd E."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - V10 + 3.73 or 4.30?

Good enough, I don't think I really paid attention to the mention of the vibration problem, and was just putting out supportive evidence of ESOF problems.

Dick Dorff wrote:

> Todd,
>
> Apologies for the confusion. I originally read something, probably on one of the Edmunds msg boards, citing a correlation between ESOF and driveline vibrations as being based on the reading of other reports. I couldn't find those other first hand reports. I looked again at them now, ("Any Super Duty Owners"), and did see some messages where a correlation is suspected. Anyway, what caused me to think you also suspected a correlation was your previous (two ago) message.
>
> Yesterday (10/29) Jim wrote in response to one of my emails,
> "I passed on buying an F250 SC 4x4 ESOF last month because the dealer
> told me it was in the shop to fix a vibration problem. I bought the
> manual hubs/transfer case instead. "
> He then went on to talk about the towing performance problem.
>
> You then responded with :
> "I have read of many such problems with the ESOF and ltd slip. Enough to
> convince me not
> to get the ESOF. The source of most of this information is :
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://4x44u.vmag.com/forum/f250-1097/"
> (also still at the tail end of this email)
>
> I read your response as meaning the combination of ESOF and ltd slip caused a problem, and since it was probably not the towing performance problem, you must have been referring to the vibration problem. I now suspect you that you meant you've read of problems with ESOF and of problems with ltd slip, but not "ESOF and ltd slip", as in in combination with each other.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick.
>
> PS.
>
> Todd E. wrote:
>
> > I never said the vibration problem had anything to do with the ESOF. There have been other failures related to the ESOF dealing with 4 wheel drive engagement. These problems have been attributed to the GEM. I don't know where you got the idea that the vibration issue was related..
> >
> > Dick Dorff wrote:
> >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > I think I've been through that msg board top to bottom, reading every "vibration" thread, but I saw no correlation to ESOF there. Common among many are V10, 3.73, and the SC, LB or CC, SB wheelbase (which I think are the same) (obviously 99 SD related). Where is the ESOF correlation coming from? Both you and Jim Kauppila reference that correlation. Did I miss it, or is it in another message board. I've been through Edmunds Town Hall (except the "SD Delivery Issues"), F150 Online, and
> > > chat.fourwheeler.com. Are there others (besides the Ford Diesel Web Page)?
> > >
> > > Can anyone think of why the ESOF might contribute to a driveline vibration? Seems unlikely at first blush, but I'll defer to any experiences.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'm really trying to decide whether to ditch the ESOF, and whether to change the 3.73ls for a 4.30ls (w/ my V10 CC SB just ordered). The wife would really like the ESOF provided it works so she doesn't have to slog through the slush all the time. Me too, so I don't have to stop along the highway after the snow situation has changed enough to warrant locking/unlocking the hubs, provided it stays working. The biggest drawback is if it breaks, there's no way to engage the front drive
> > > shaft. It's little consolation that the hubs can be manually overridden. I also really wish they had just the auto-hubs w/ manual override, and an option to leave the xfer case engaging manual. What are they thinking?
> > >
> > > Dick Dorff.
> > >
> > > Todd E. wrote:
> > >
> > > > You were just looking at one issue. Look way back (months ago) and you will see what I was
> > > > referring to.
> > > >
> > > > Chad Royse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I believe that forum is talking about the 97 and earlier F250HD with automatic hubs. I had....


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.