97up-list-digest Friday, December 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 306



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

FTE 97up - ADMIN: Trim replies
Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute
Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks
FTE 97up - MPG
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - F-150 a/c drain is dripping onto exhaust pipe
Re: FTE 97up - Advice on F350 cab/chassis
Re: FTE 97up - 99 F350 vs F250 SD 4x4 LWB SRW Lariat
Re: FTE 97up - 99 f250 sd 2wd
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks
Re: FTE 97up - Re: Ford V-10 Breaking it in..
Re: FTE 97up - Re: Ford V-10 Breaking it in..
Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission
FTE 97up - 99 Superduty V-10 Transmission
Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission
FTE 97up - Re: first tow recommendations
FTE 97up - Re: service experience
Re: FTE 97up - 99 Superduty V-10 Transmission
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Crazt bout a Ford truck?**V10??**
Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??
Re: FTE 97up - Re: first tow recommendations
Re: FTE 97up - Crazt bout a Ford truck?**V10??**
Re: FTE 97up - Crazt bout a Ford truck?**V10??**

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:21:22 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 97up - ADMIN: Trim replies

Just a reminder to trim down long original messages
when replying.


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:33:06 -0800
From: "Alan Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute

Sapp, does this cause a problem for you?

Mark Sapp wrote:

> I have a 1999 F-150 5.4L 4x4. Has anybody else noticed that the a/c
> evaporator drain is routed such that it drips water onto the exhaust?
> Has anybody had a dealer correct this? If so, was there a TSB about
> it that I could reference when contacting my service rep? Thanks, Mark.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

- --
Alan Wilson
x3750


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:58:30 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??

At 9:45 AM -0500 12/10/98, RSnovi aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 98-12-10 08:03:12 EST, you write:
>
>i don't even see why they make the F 250 LD ,

Why not? It makes much more sense than the 250SD! Why do I say this? The
250LD fills the gap between the 5600 to 6500 lb GVWR F-150 and the 8800+
GVWR of the SD. The GVWR range of the 250LD is 7000 to 7700 lb which is
hardly wimpy. On the other hand, the 250SD is so similar in specification
to the 350SD, it makes absolutely no sense to offer it, especially now that
the superduty range is now up to the 550 and soon will be up to the 750!
They could simplify the lineup and reduce the cost of the SD range if they
eliminated the 250SD and started it off at the 350SD. And while the people
who would have bought a 250SD now have a "3" on their badge, the truck
would be basically the same.

And FWIW, the 250LD isn't a weak truck. It has a beefed up frame and
suspension system compared to the 150, and it carries a semifloating
version of the same rear axle found on the 250SD and 350SD.

Rob


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:32:17 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

At 9:55 AM -0500 12/10/98, Ken Payne wrote:
>Ford didn't weaken
>the suspension of the F150 and change it over to an
>automotive suspension because the majority drive it as a
>truck. They did it because the majority drive is as a car.
>
>Ken

Ken, with a silly statement like this, I'm beginning to think you have
never seen the frame or suspension of a previous-generation F-150 (I've had
2 of them). The new F-150 frame is significantly stronger than the one
found on the older truck. And while the Twin-I-Beam suspension of the old
F-150 had a "reputation for durability", the stamped steel I-beams and
radius arms of the F-150 left much to be desired when it comes to strength
and durability (before all you HD/SD people jump down my throat over this,
realise that the 250+ trucks had forged I-beams and kingpins instead of the
weaker stamped parts of the 150). OTOH, the new 150 has one of the beefiest
A-arm suspensions that I have seen this side of the HumVee. That truck has
a similar-design front suspension, and I don't see anyone characterising it
as "weak and car like" (it's pathetic GM diesel is another story, though).
And those beefy A-arms connect to a boxed-section frame that is stronger
and more rigid than what the old swing-axles and radius arms were attached
to.

Another thing that is bothering me is this commie-lib think that is
floating around here that one can not drive a truck around unless it is a
superduty carrying a heavy load. If I want to drive an unloaded truck to
the store, I AM GOING TO. I am not going to be forced to drive an unsafe
compact car like a Honda just to placate the tree-huggers that are more
concerned about the health of the Marbled Murlet than with the freedom of
the people. See the latest ruling of the CA Air Resources Board to see what
I mean. They want to subject light trucks to the same fuel economy and
clean air standards of a wimpy 4-cylinder compact because "people drive
them like cars". Why do they think people are now buying trucks? It is
because their CAFE standards have made cars less safe and capable than a
truck for most uses. While a sports car is still the vehicle of choice for
flying around curves, modern trucks are more comfortable and capable for
the majority of driving people do today.

Rob


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:03:07 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks

Keith,

There is a big difference between a "hybrid" truck/car and a F-150. A
hybrid truck/car is one with a unibody car frame and suspension but with
the addition of an additional drive axle, greater ride height, and bigger
tires. See the pathetic CRV or RAV-4 for examples of this. Even most new
Jeep vehicles somewhat fit in this category with their unibody.

The F-150 does not fit this definition. While it has a modern A-arm IFS, it
is hardly "weak and car like". The A-arms are big and strong, connected to
a large and heavy steel frame with a boxed front section. In fact, the only
components shared with cars are the 4.6L engine and the 8.8" rear axle. And
even then, the cars that the F-150 shares those components with are very
large ones. And with the 5.4L engine comes a beefier rear axle. While the
250LD comes an even stronger frame, front suspension, and a semifloating
version of the 250SD/350SD rear axle.

I still find it quite outdated that people that are "wired" to the internet
still cling to the "antique" belief that if the vehicle drives better, that
it is inherently weaker. Billions of dollars were spent by Ford to design a
truck that has superior road manners, while incorporating more inherent
strength than its predecessor. Yet, a good number of people still cling to
the antiquated belief that because the interior is nicer, the exterior is
smoother, and its on-road manners are better that it must be weaker when it
comes to durability and load-carrying. But it is hard to make that claim
when you actually compare the hardware. On to newer trucks, the superduty
is hardly any more a "real truck" than the light duty. It is however, a
truck designed for a higher GVWR and to carry larger loads. So in the light
of that, is a F350SD not a "real truck" because the F750SD has a solid
front axle, a bigger frame, and even more angular styling? Of course not!
It is one designed around a lower GVWR envelope. Swing-axles and a bulging
grille are not required atributes of a "real truck", especially when
comparing vehicles made by the same manufacturer, and redesigned with the
common goal of creating better driving dynamics, greater durability, and
more comfort for truck owners, no matter what weight-class vehicle they
require.

Rob


At 11:42 AM -0500 12/10/98, Keith Veren wrote:
>I was talking about "real trucks", e.g., the F-250, and F-350 SuperDuties,
>not "hybrid" truck/cars like the F-150s. [Before I get flamed for that
>statement, let me say that F-150s can certainly be sucessfully utilized for
>light to medium truck-duty; however, many of the mechanical components are
>"car-sized" and "car-designed" to eliminate rough rides and provide better
>"car-like" handling]. I do agree with you that more F-150s will be used as
>mall runners than F-250 or F-350 SuperDuties.
>
>Keith


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:50:34 -0700
From: "Matus, Scott A"
Subject: FTE 97up - MPG

To: "Kirk Werner"

I have just received my truck that is identical to yours except mine is a
4x4. What were your MPG during the 12,000 miles you have owned it? Mileage
when NEW, Break-in and when mileage began to level out?

Thanks,

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:56:02 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

>
>Another thing that is bothering me is this commie-lib think that is
>floating around here that one can not drive a truck around unless it is a
>superduty carrying a heavy load. If I want to drive an unloaded truck to
>the store, I AM GOING TO. I am not going to be forced to drive an unsafe
>compact car like a Honda just to placate the tree-huggers that are more
>concerned about the health of the Marbled Murlet than with the freedom of
>the people. See the latest ruling of the CA Air Resources Board to see what
>I mean. They want to subject light trucks to the same fuel economy and
>clean air standards of a wimpy 4-cylinder compact because "people drive
>them like cars". Why do they think people are now buying trucks? It is
>because their CAFE standards have made cars less safe and capable than a
>truck for most uses. While a sports car is still the vehicle of choice for
>flying around curves, modern trucks are more comfortable and capable for
>the majority of driving people do today.
>
>Rob
>



Rob, I could not agree with you more. The day the EPA tree-hugging eco-nazis
take away my Large SUV Expedition (soon to be Excursion) or large pick-up
truck (F-350 SuperDuty) because too many people purchase them as daily
drivers (instead of the politically-correct tiny little dangerous 50
mile/per gallon "beer cans") I will purchase a 25,000 pound dump-truck and
have it customized to be comfortable. No governmental regulator is going to
squeeze my family into a tiny tin-box death trap just to fulfill their
twisted notion of what people should drive!


Keith

[......Wow, that felt good.....]



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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:50:01 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - F-150 a/c drain is dripping onto exhaust pipe

I'm not sure but this is probably intentional. We have a lot of complaints
about the huge puddles that newer air conditioners can make and this is
probably how they solved it.

Nathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sapp
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 4:38 AM
Subject: FTE 97up - F-150 a/c drain is dripping onto exhaust pipe


>I have a 1999 F-150 5.4L 4x4. Has anybody else noticed that the a/c
>evaporator drain is routed such that it drips water onto the exhaust?
>Has anybody had a dealer correct this? If so, was there a TSB about
>it that I could reference when contacting my service rep? Thanks, Mark.


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:58:12 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Advice on F350 cab/chassis

To get the 40/20/40 seat you have to get the XLT. There is no way to get
the XLT without power windows. If you do order the XL remember that a rear
seat is not standard on an XL supercab. As for price the Chassis and
regular truck are comparable enough that I'd get the one that would be the
most functional for you.

Nathan Bernard
Union Auto, Inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Usnick
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 1:38 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - Advice on F350 cab/chassis


>
>I'm preparing to order a 99 PSD F350 SC Cab
>and Chassis 4x4. This will be a farm truck and
>I would just as soon not have most of the fancy
>options. The only exceptions are cruise, AC and
>I sure would like that 40/20/40 recliner seat.
>
>The only literature I have from Ford is for the
>pickup, not the cab/chassis, but I'm assuming that
>the cab/chassis follows the pickup. According
>to this info, the 40/20/40 seat is not available
>on the XL. Is this the case with the cab/chassis?
>
>If necessary, I'll probably order the XLT to
>get the seat.
>
>If I order XLT and pick up package 617A to get
>cruise and A/C, can I delete the power windows?
>(cranking windows to spit a wad is how I stay
>in such great shape)
>
>How close are the F350 pickup and F350 cab/chassis
>on options, price, etc?
>
>TIA,
>
>Mark


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:59:50 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99 F350 vs F250 SD 4x4 LWB SRW Lariat

There seems to be very little difference in ride. The 350 will have better
resale (about equal to the extra cost).

Nathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Gatchell
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, December 04, 1998 10:36 AM
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 F350 vs F250 SD 4x4 LWB SRW Lariat


>I'm considering buying either an F350 or F250 SD 4x4 LWB SRW Lariat Super
>Cab with 7.3L Turbo Diesel, towing and camper package. My goal is to tow a
>5th wheel occasionally but I really want to have only one vehicle so I will
>be using my truck to commute mostly. The 350 and 250 have the same tow
>rating and a typical 5th wheel tongue weight of 20% means the payload on
>either should not be exceeded.
>
>For a vehicle like this, the initial cost difference is not significant.
>My question is: What are the advantages of one over the other?
>1) Does the 350 have a rougher ride? If so is it noticeable?
>2) Does the 350 have a better resale market?
>4) All things being equal, would you expect gas mileage to be different?
>
>Thanks,
>Doug
>== 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: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:03:54 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99 f250 sd 2wd

There is no comparison between the 302 and the 5.4L. The 302 had about 180
HP (varied from year to year), the 351 hit a maximum of 210 (in normal
trucks) and the 5.4L has 235HP (260 in F-Series LD). This gives you an idea
of how much more power this engine has. On the Torque side the difference
is even more in favor of the 5.4L due to the low RPM's at which torque is
developed. Also the throttle response is much better. My suggestion is to
just go drive one and I think you'll be impressed.

Nathan Bernard
Union Auto, inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joe Delvo
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 4:47 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 f250 sd 2wd


>I am going to purchase a 99 F250sd 2wd Extended Cab in the near future.
>
>Any reports on mileage with the V10 vs the 5.4 Triton ? Towing heavy
>loads will be less than 10 % of the trucks use and not at highway
>speeds.
>
>I have been driving Ford trucks since 76 and the only complaint I have
>had is the lack of power on my 95 F150 w 302. How does the 5.4 compare
>to it ?
>
>
>
>== 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: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:17:31 -0800
From: "Jose Pomposo Jr."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

Well put Keith. All I drive are trucks with the exception of my '81
Cadillac Seville w\ 6.0L V8. This car weighs more than my new F-150 SC 4x4!
- -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Veren
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?


>
>
>>
>>Another thing that is bothering me is this commie-lib think that is
>>floating around here that one can not drive a truck around unless it is a
>>superduty carrying a heavy load. If I want to drive an unloaded truck to
>>the store, I AM GOING TO. I am not going to be forced to drive an unsafe
>>compact car like a Honda just to placate the tree-huggers that are more
>>concerned about the health of the Marbled Murlet than with the freedom of
>>the people. See the latest ruling of the CA Air Resources Board to see
what
>>I mean. They want to subject light trucks to the same fuel economy and
>>clean air standards of a wimpy 4-cylinder compact because "people drive
>>them like cars". Why do they think people are now buying trucks? It is
>>because their CAFE standards have made cars less safe and capable than a
>>truck for most uses. While a sports car is still the vehicle of choice for
>>flying around curves, modern trucks are more comfortable and capable for
>>the majority of driving people do today.
>>
>>Rob
>>
>
>
>
>Rob, I could not agree with you more. The day the EPA tree-hugging
eco-nazis
>take away my Large SUV Expedition (soon to be Excursion) or large pick-up
>truck (F-350 SuperDuty) because too many people purchase them as daily
>drivers (instead of the politically-correct tiny little dangerous 50
>mile/per gallon "beer cans") I will purchase a 25,000 pound dump-truck and
>have it customized to be comfortable. No governmental regulator is going
to
>squeeze my family into a tiny tin-box death trap just to fulfill their
>twisted notion of what people should drive!
>
>
>Keith
>
>[......Wow, that felt good.....]
>
>
>
>== 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: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:22:51 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks

I never said "weak".

Keith

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bryan
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Cc: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks


>Keith,
>
>There is a big difference between a "hybrid" truck/car and a F-150. A
>hybrid truck/car is one with a unibody car frame and suspension but with
>the addition of an additional drive axle, greater ride height, and bigger
>tires. See the pathetic CRV or RAV-4 for examples of this. Even most new
>Jeep vehicles somewhat fit in this category with their unibody.
>
>The F-150 does not fit this definition. While it has a modern A-arm IFS, it
>is hardly "weak and car like". The A-arms are big and strong, connected to
>a large and heavy steel frame with a boxed front section. In fact, the only
>components shared with cars are the 4.6L engine and the 8.8" rear axle. And
>even then, the cars that the F-150 shares those components with are very
>large ones. And with the 5.4L engine comes a beefier rear axle. While the
>250LD comes an even stronger frame, front suspension, and a semifloating
>version of the 250SD/350SD rear axle.
>
>I still find it quite outdated that people that are "wired" to the internet
>still cling to the "antique" belief that if the vehicle drives better, that
>it is inherently weaker. Billions of dollars were spent by Ford to design a
>truck that has superior road manners, while incorporating more inherent
>strength than its predecessor. Yet, a good number of people still cling to
>the antiquated belief that because the interior is nicer, the exterior is
>smoother, and its on-road manners are better that it must be weaker when it
>comes to durability and load-carrying. But it is hard to make that claim
>when you actually compare the hardware. On to newer trucks, the superduty
>is hardly any more a "real truck" than the light duty. It is however, a
>truck designed for a higher GVWR and to carry larger loads. So in the light
>of that, is a F350SD not a "real truck" because the F750SD has a solid
>front axle, a bigger frame, and even more angular styling? Of course not!
>It is one designed around a lower GVWR envelope. Swing-axles and a bulging
>grille are not required atributes of a "real truck", especially when
>comparing vehicles made by the same manufacturer, and redesigned with the
>common goal of creating better driving dynamics, greater durability, and
>more comfort for truck owners, no matter what weight-class vehicle they
>require.
>
>Rob
>
>
>At 11:42 AM -0500 12/10/98, Keith Veren wrote:
>>I was talking about "real trucks", e.g., the F-250, and F-350 SuperDuties,
>>not "hybrid" truck/cars like the F-150s. [Before I get flamed for that
>>statement, let me say that F-150s can certainly be sucessfully utilized
for
>>light to medium truck-duty; however, many of the mechanical components are
>>"car-sized" and "car-designed" to eliminate rough rides and provide better
>>"car-like" handling]. I do agree with you that more F-150s will be used
as
>>mall runners than F-250 or F-350 SuperDuties.
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>== 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, 11 Dec 1998 18:41:25 -0600 (CST)
From: dfloyd fnord.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

>
> Rob, I could not agree with you more. The day the EPA tree-hugging eco-nazis
> take away my Large SUV Expedition (soon to be Excursion) or large pick-up
> truck (F-350 SuperDuty) because too many people purchase them as daily
> drivers (instead of the politically-correct tiny little dangerous 50
> mile/per gallon "beer cans") I will purchase a 25,000 pound dump-truck and
> have it customized to be comfortable. No governmental regulator is going to
> squeeze my family into a tiny tin-box death trap just to fulfill their
> twisted notion of what people should drive!

I might as well join this rant (its preaching to the choir, in a sense
though.):

I agree here too. I have a large dislike for what I call "road scat"; small
cars. Yes, people brag about how they handle, but a motorcycle can handle
better, so why don't they get that? (Yep, Harleys are far more cooler than
honda civics, neons and other clutter.)

Safety? One can brag about safety features on small cars all day long, but
how much of that crap really works? One's Neon may have side impact air
bags, but that doesn't help when the car is turned into an accordian. If
one checks insurance crash statistics, (well on USAA's), F150's are all
five stars, (they didn't list the F250's and larger, though). There are
darn few cars that rate that high, and the cars that do are larger cars
(Crown Vic, Town Car, Seville, et al.) Some people spout other statistics,
but they are usually collisions of small car/small car, which are not that
common.

I won't reiterate what has been said, but I really dislike the people who
bellyache about people driving trucks/SUV's. I like irking them off and
saying that the best way to judge how good a new car is, is how low the
gas milage is. The lower the milage; the better the vehicle. ;)

>
>
> Keith
>
> [......Wow, that felt good.....]
>
>
>
> == 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: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 15:44:22 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Dealers taking care of Trucks

At 6:22 PM -0500 12/10/98, Keith Veren wrote:
>I never said "weak".
>
>Keith

Sorry. That word must have popped into my head as a synonym for "car-sized"
and "car-designed". Anyway, the quotation mark should have fallen after the
word weak.

Rob


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:36:42 EST
From: KWkM3 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Ford V-10 Breaking it in..


buyers, if it has been broken in without being driven hard (babied),
will subsequent hard driving re-break it in, or break it in 'the rest of
the way', and make it feel more powerful, or is that first xx,000 miles
your first and only chance? >>

If it is babied too much then you run the risk of the rings not seating
properly. If that happens beating on it wont help. The ring and hone package
on these modular engines seems to take quite a bit of time to break in full
though. When breaking in an engine you need to give it enough throttle to put
a load on the rod/cam bearings and rings/cylinder walls etc. Then let off and
coast, this gives the oil a chance to flush all the metal particles away.
Progressively increase rpm's and load with more mileage. I wouldn't mat the
throttle to redline with less than 500 miles on the odo but that's me. One of
the fastest 100% stock mustangs in the country was driven from the showroom
straight to the track. How's that for break in. I believe in the "harder you
break it in the faster it will go" theory.

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:45:44 EST
From: KWkM3 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: Ford V-10 Breaking it in..


were getting a new truck I'd baby the brakes for the first 1,000 miles. I'd
run with the hubs locked on a 4x4 for 500 miles or so to make sure the front
end is correct and functional (before your sitting stuck wishing you'd
tested it earlier). >>

All good practice. Once the rotors are seasoned from the gentle heat
cycling(dont beat on them like Nathan said) then you should bed in the pads.
If you don't the pads could glaze over and you will never get the fullest
braking ability.

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:03:07 EST
From: ROBBCWZ aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute

Why worry? Water on the exhaust won't hurt it - or do you park when it
rains! The '97's had a recall because the water drained onto the O2 sensor
but that has been corrected. If you don't want the water, don't use the A/C.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:40:28 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

- -snip-
>
>Ken, with a silly statement like this, I'm beginning to think you have
>never seen the frame or suspension of a previous-generation F-150 (I've had
>2 of them).

Silly? Never seen a frame or suspension....?

My 67 F100 is in the driveway right now. 310,000+ miles and going
strong. I've taken its entire front suspension off on more than
one occasion. Changed it over to disc brakes 2 years ago and helped
a friend do the same conversion on a 72. I've swapped many rear
pumpkins and axles. Plus I've done coil spring changing and I-beam
swaps. Going to help a friend lower the front on an 87 this winter.
I seen many suspensions, up close and personal. I know the meaning
of busting your knuckles and getting grease under your nails.

Silly? I think not.

>The new F-150 frame is significantly stronger than the one
>found on the older truck. And while the Twin-I-Beam suspension of the old
>F-150 had a "reputation for durability",

More than a reputation. They were very strong.

>the stamped steel I-beams and
>radius arms of the F-150 left much to be desired when it comes to strength
>and durability (before all you HD/SD people jump down my throat over this,
- -snip-
>and more rigid than what the old swing-axles and radius arms were attached
>to.

Just was you give up a smoother ride when you stiffen a suspension for
cornering, there are tradeoffs. Why is this so difficult to admit?
Is the F150 is consumer vehicle or a work truck? I think its aimed
to a consumer vehicle market. Compromises were made. Do a Dejanews
search and you'll be amazed at the number of complaints about how
much it sags with a load as compared to the previous generation. This
is not my imagination. Compare bumpers, sheet metal, etc.

>Another thing that is bothering me is this commie-lib think that is
>floating around here that one can not drive a truck around unless it is a
>superduty carrying a heavy load. If I want to drive an unloaded truck to
>the store, I AM GOING TO.

***emphasize*** with astericks. No need to shout please.

I don't think there were "tree hugger" statements. I never said
a thing about gas milage and economy? Heck, one of my vehicles
gets 6 mpg! Its just plain scary seeing some of the people who
drive the new trucks. They have this power trip when they get
behind the wheel because it somehow makes them feel macho. I
don't know how many times I've had someone in a stop and go
traffic situation pull their truck over into my lane without
any regard as to whether I'd slow down. Sort of a "tough, I'm
bigger" attitude. I'm not talking about getting cut off
either, I mean the 5mph creap into your lane 1-2 inches away
from your auto with the driver wedging himself it. I've never
had an obvious work truck do this to me.

A few weeks ago I had the displeasure of watching a 4 1/2 foot
woman back a shiny F250 SD into a car a the grocery store because
she was too short to see very well in this truck. The rear
view mirror was nearly pointed to floor so she could see in it.
Where's the logic in someone like this driving such a big truck?

Ken

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:43:11 -0700
From: "Brandt Dennehy"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission

- -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Veren
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission


>No redline. The rev limiter prevents overrevving. You can see it work by
>putting the truck automatic trans in 1st or 2nd and stomping on the gas
>until the engine stops accelerating. On the Expedtion 5.4L V-8, this
occurs
>around 5500 RPM.
>
>Keith
>


So let me get this straight, I can not redline my Superduty v-10 manual
trans., no matter what I do........I'm not arguing with you, but that sounds
kind of funny. On the other hand, I guess they would put a redline zone
onto the tachomter if there was any chance of damage.
- --Brandt (confused??)

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:51:54 -0700
From: "Brandt Dennehy"
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 Superduty V-10 Transmission

I asked this question in another letter, but may not have described it
clearly...
My concern is that when I push in my clutch and let the truck coast
(e.g.--slowing down for a stop light for instance), if I go over any bumps,
there is a rattling under the truck (feels possibly like the driveline????).
It only does it when the clutch is engaged. Sometimes when I just push the
clutch in to switch gears, it just feels like there is play or
something.......any input would be great!! Thanks.

- -Brandt

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:21:31 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission

I guess if you were fully loaded and going down a steep hill in high gear
(either trans, man. or auto) and threw it into low gear it might overrev by
being "pushed" by the rev-limiter will not let you exceed the set point (on
my 5.4L around 5500 RPM). I have tried it. You keep accelerating to about
5300 RPM then you feel like it is starting to miss, at 5400 RPM it feels
just like a governor kicking in (like lawn-mowers or minibikes or lawn
tractors at full throttle) and you cannot get it over 5500 RPM. By the way,
the engine seems very happy at 4800 RPM to 5300 RPMs!


Keith



)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Brandt Dennehy
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, December 10, 1998 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission


>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Veren
>To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
>Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:57 PM
>Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Tachometer--manual transmission
>
>
>>No redline. The rev limiter prevents overrevving. You can see it work by
>>putting the truck automatic trans in 1st or 2nd and stomping on the gas
>>until the engine stops accelerating. On the Expedtion 5.4L V-8, this
>occurs
>>around 5500 RPM.
>>
>>Keith
>>
>
>
>So let me get this straight, I can not redline my Superduty v-10 manual
>trans., no matter what I do........I'm not arguing with you, but that
sounds
>kind of funny. On the other hand, I guess they would put a redline zone
>onto the tachomter if there was any chance of damage.
>--Brandt (confused??)
>
>== 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: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:09:44 -0600
From: "Bud Feuless & Miki Magara"
Subject: FTE 97up - Re: first tow recommendations

OD vs. No OD when towing is a much debated question. I believe, however,
there is a very simple answer. With cruise control disengaged and while
maintaining constant gas pedal position, shift gears. You will go faster in
the better gear, in general. This holds true on inclines and flat terrain.
The exception is "hilly" terrain, where this test should be performed on a
representative incline; however, if the transmission then exhibits a
tendency to "hunt", you should downshift, regardless. I do not recommend
driving with cruise control when trailering substantial loads, especially in
moderately hilly to mountainous terrain, and/or when heavily loaded. This
can lead to unnecessary and improper shifting, and transmission and engine
heat and wear.

Hope this helps...

Regards, Bud


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:01:04 -0600
From: "Bud Feuless & Miki Magara"
Subject: FTE 97up - Re: service experience

Gee, Nathan, why does it not surprise me that your dealership won that
award... ...

If they're all as helpful as you, they must be the best Ford dealership in
the country. I always enjoy and appreciate your informative responses to my
queries and others. I can tell by the fact that you are sometimes absent
for a bit, and then respond to a dozen posts or so at once, that you are
very busy, and that keeping up with this is not always easy for you. I want
to let you know how much I appreciate your commitment to all of us on this
NG and take the opportunity to wish you and yours the best this Holiday
Season and for the coming years.

And Best Wishes to everyone out there on the NG, who all add a ray of
brightness to my evening after a long day at work and provide a welcome
electronic getaway!

Cheers! - Bud



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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:21:44 -0600
From: Karl Nyhus
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99 Superduty V-10 Transmission

Brandt Dennehy wrote:
> My concern is that when I push in my clutch
> and let the truck coast (e.g.--slowing down
> for a stop light for instance), if I go
> over any bumps, there is a rattling under
> the truck (feels possibly like the driveline????).

The linkage under my shift lever rattles noticeably if I hit a rough
patch while disengaging and re-engaging the clutch during a shift.
However, it's perfectly quiet and smooth when the road is halfway
decent. I haven't thought this was a problem.

Karl Nyhus--Minneapolis, MN--1997 Pacific Green Ford F-150 SuperCab XL,
SB, 4.6L V8, 4WD, 3.08, 5-speed, LT255/70R16D BFG All-Terrain T/A on
steel, Better Built toolbox, rust-proofed/undercoated, Line-X spray-in
liner
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:46:02 PST
From: "Frank Spor"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

A Question:
If the "New" F150 (97) and up is so Damned strong, or so much "stronger"
than previous F150's -

How come in January of 1996 when the MOMMIFIED F150 Appeared It was A
specific NO - NO To put a snow plow on this vehicle ?

The OLD 1996 F150 could (and does) handle it just fine !, so did my 1987
F150, and the 1977 F150 I owned before that.

Just another way that I use the "TOOL" I call a truck.

Frank



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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:03:49 EST
From: BigFords1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Crazt bout a Ford truck?**V10??**

Since when did Ford make a straight six in the F-150's?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:33:30 +1100 (EST)
From: Mark Sapp
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - A/C drain reroute

Alan,
No it is not a problem, however, having to explain to my friends &
neighbors that the hissing sounds are "normal" is very frustrating.
Considering all the thought and engineering that went into the design
of the F-150, the engineers should have realized this and corrected
the "annoyance".




- ---Alan Wilson wrote:
>
> Sapp, does this cause a problem for you?
>
> Mark Sapp wrote:
>
> > I have a 1999 F-150 5.4L 4x4. Has anybody else noticed that the a/c
> > evaporator drain is routed such that it drips water onto the
exhaust?
> > Has anybody had a dealer correct this? If so, was there a TSB about
> > it that I could reference when contacting my service rep? Thanks,
Mark.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > DO YOU YAHOO!?
> > > >
> > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
> --
> Alan Wilson
> x3750
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:48:24 EST
From: RSnovi aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

In a message dated 12/10/98 7:39:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Spectrum-
EHS worldnet.att.net writes:

i have to second that motion, everyone in this household here has nothing
under 3000lbs.

RS

Rob, I could not agree with you more. The day the EPA tree-hugging eco-nazis
take away my Large SUV Expedition (soon to be Excursion) or large pick-up
truck (F-350 SuperDuty) because too many people purchase them as daily
drivers (instead of the politically-correct tiny little dangerous 50
mile/per gallon "beer cans") I will purchase a 25,000 pound dump-truck and
have it customized to be comfortable. No governmental regulator is going to
squeeze my family into a tiny tin-box death trap just to fulfill their
twisted notion of what people should drive!


Keith

[......Wow, that felt good.....]
>>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:46:07 EST
From: RSnovi aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??

In a message dated 12/10/98 7:10:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rbryan netgate.net writes:

one key element its missing though is the solid front axle.

RS

Why not? It makes much more sense than the 250SD! Why do I say this? The
250LD fills the gap between the 5600 to 6500 lb GVWR F-150 and the 8800+
GVWR of the SD. The GVWR range of the 250LD is 7000 to 7700 lb which is
hardly wimpy. On the other hand, the 250SD is so similar in specification
to the 350SD, it makes absolutely no sense to offer it, especially now that
the superduty range is now up to the 550 and soon will be up to the 750!
They could simplify the lineup and reduce the cost of the SD range if they
eliminated the 250SD and started it off at the 350SD. And while the people
who would have bought a 250SD now have a "3" on their badge, the truck
would be basically the same.

And FWIW, the 250LD isn't a weak truck. It has a beefed up frame and
suspension system compared to the 150, and it carries a semifloating
version of the same rear axle found on the 250SD and 350SD.
>>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 01:52:49 EST
From: RSnovi aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: first tow recommendations

In a message dated 12/10/98 9:34:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, bfeuless pdq.net
writes:


well i towed about hald the way in NO OD, man it sucked down the gas, and the
rest of the way in OD , only putting it in 3rd when hittin a big hill. seemed
to do ok, would have been better if i would have had the correct drop in the
reciever in the hitch for the trailer. Mis calculated that one.

RS

OD vs. No OD when towing is a much debated question. I believe, however,
there is a very simple answer. With cruise control disengaged and while
maintaining constant gas pedal position, shift gears. You will go faster in
the better gear, in general. This holds true on inclines and flat terrain.
The exception is "hilly" terrain, where this test should be performed on a
representative incline; however, if the transmission then exhibits a
tendency to "hunt", you should downshift, regardless. I do not recommend
driving with cruise control when trailering substantial loads, especially in
moderately hilly to mountainous terrain, and/or when heavily loaded. This
can lead to unnecessary and improper shifting, and transmission and engine
heat and wear.

Hope this helps.......


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.