97up-list-digest Tuesday, December 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 310



=======================================================================
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 - Lariat SD overhead console.
Re: FTE 97up - Opinions
FTE 97up - Re: 99 SD 250 Continued
Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.
Re: FTE 97up - '99 SD 250 continued
FTE 97up - Sport Package Delay
Re: FTE 97up - '99 SD 250 continued
FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay
Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??
Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.
Re: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
FTE 97up - Re: V-10 / Piston slap
FTE 97up - 3:55 Limited Slip Questions
FTE 97up - FTE 97up

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:29:25 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

I finally got one of my missing Lariat Super Duty's in. The overhead
console has a compass, distance until empty, average mileage, and outside
temperature.

Nathan Bernard


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 05:45:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Sapp
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Opinions

ROBBCWZ,
If I paid for the truck, who are you to tell me what to do with MY
truck? I wouldn't disrespect you by telling you how your truck should
be used. To each his/her own.
My $.02,
Mark
BTW..
1993 Ranger - Lot's of scratches & dents.(All by Me!)
1999 F-150 4x4 ORP 5.4L(no piston slapping & very pristine!)

- ---ROBBCWZ aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/13/98 09:24:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> vbnaas erols.com writes:
>
>
> Please keep in mind that the scratched and dented truck theory is
"your"
> opinion and not necessarily shared by many of us on this list.
> Just my tcw....
> Paul >>
>
>
> Paul:
>
> There is just a point in all this when one begins to wonder what
some people
> do with their trucks/cars/whatever's. Sometimes it's as if no one
drives
> their vehicle, they just sit and admire it's pristine,
"wish-it-was-in-the-
> showroom" condition. Under normal circumstances a ding or a scratch
is
> inevitable, period!
>
> This "water on the exhaust" will move to the "how big should the
puddle of
> water be" shortly yet again; it just gets a little redundant.
>
> My nickle......
> == 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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:12:37 EST
From: JDavis1277 aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - Re: 99 SD 250 Continued

Ben,

I would not pay any more than $300 over invoice for any Super Duty regardless
of whether it is a "special order" or off the lot, or what.

Remember the dealer gets 3% of the MSRP as holdback after the deal. On a $30K
MSRP truck sold at invoice, the dealer gets a check for $900 from Ford.

Recently, I got a commitment from a local dealer to order me any Super Duty
for $300 over invoice. This dealer has plenty of allocations, so delivery
should be fairly fast depending upon options, trim, etc. It only took about 5
minutes to reach the $300 over point. When I finally make my order, I'm going
to demand a good alarm system at no extra cost to sweeten the deal. Betcha I
get it, too, because the truck I'll be ordering will get him $1300 including
holdback. If not, I can live with the $300.

Good luck, Butch Davis-
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:08:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Neal Moon
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

how difficult would it be the install a lariet overhead console into
an xlt (and have all the feature working). i like the console but did
not want the leather

- -Neal



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:40:00 -0600
From: "Charles Abraham"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - '99 SD 250 continued

Benjamin,

Start at invoice and work up, not he other way. (Even at invoice the dealer is
still making
a profit.) I paid $200 over invoice and got a "Nathan" type dealership (this is
good). Others
here have gotten better than this. The only cost that's inescapable is the Ford
advertising fund
charge, which varies - mine was $290, and I have yet to see a Super Duty
commercial on TV.

Your "college grad" discount still applies regardless.

Charles.

Benjamin R. MacRAE wrote:

> Couple of quick additions to my original post here......
>
> ---Some people on the list have mentioned going with the V10 instead of the
> 5.4L (I can afford the extra $300 for the V10 but not the extra $4000 for
> the diesel)...... what kind of gas mileage do each of these tend to get
> with an automatic, the standard rear-end, with mainly highway driving????
> And has the V10 been as durable as the 5.4??
>
> ---About how much $$$ can I expect to get taken off the sticker on a
> special-order truck such as this??? I know the dealer has a margin of
> about $3500 or so between dealer invoice and sticker, and the small dealer
> in town here said they would take $1000 off sticker plus my 1st time
> buyer/college graduate discount of about $500 more....so as it stands, I
> know I can get $1500 off sticker. Should I be able to get more off, or is
> this all I can expect on such a high-demand vehicle???
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Ben
> == 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: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 15:57:04 -0600
From: John Walker
Subject: FTE 97up - Sport Package Delay

I was wondering if anyone has heard any new information regarding the =
production hold on the F150 XLT Sport package. It has been about 12 =
weeks since I ordered my truck and I have yet to recieve a production =
date. It is now about 6 weeks past the original hold date (around Nov =
1) and according to my dealer, there is no new approximate time for =
production. I was hoping to have the truck before Christmas, but that =
seems impossible now. Any information is greatly appreciated.

John Walker

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:04:13 -0500
From: Scot Evanson
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - '99 SD 250 continued

Scot Evanson wrote:

The holdback is on the MSRP and at leat 3%. The ad fees vary by region
and vary
greatly.

SAE

Charles Abraham wrote:

Benjamin,

Start at invoice and work up, not he other way. (Even at invoice the
dealer is
still making
a profit.) I paid $200 over invoice and got a "Nathan" type dealership
(this is
good). Others
here have gotten better than this. The only cost that's inescapable is
the Ford
advertising fund
charge, which varies - mine was $290, and I have yet to see a Super
Duty
commercial on TV.

Your "college grad" discount still applies regardless.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:05:41 -0600
From: John Walker
Subject: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay

I was wondering if anyone has heard any new information regarding the =
production hold on the F150 XLT Sport package. It has been about 12 =
weeks since I ordered my truck and I have yet to recieve a production =
date. It is now about 6 weeks past the original hold date (around Nov =
1) and according to my dealer, there is no new approximate time for =
production. I was hoping to have the truck before Christmas, but that =
seems impossible now. Any information is greatly appreciated.

John Walker

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:04:27 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - F150/LD250 Suspension Lift??

Unlike the '80-'97 F-250HD, the new F250SD has the same solid axle as the
350SD.
Rob

At 1:46 AM -0500 12/11/98, RSnovi aol.com wrote:
>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.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:51:28 EST
From: RSnovi aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

In a message dated 12/14/98 11:18:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
neal1996 yahoo.com writes:


how difficult would it be the install a lariet overhead console into
an xlt (and have all the feature working). i like the console but did
not want the leather

-Neal

>>
yea i wouldnt mind it either!

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:12:37 -0600
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay

Was yours a 4x2 or 4x4? My first sport (4x4 S/C XLT 4.6L) was built a week
or two ago and should be here any day. What engine Transmission and body
style did you order?

Nathan

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Walker
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:17 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay




I was wondering if anyone has heard any new information regarding the
production hold on the F150 XLT Sport package. It has been about 12 weeks
since I ordered my truck and I have yet to recieve a production date. It is
now about 6 weeks past the original hold date (around Nov 1) and according
to my dealer, there is no new approximate time for production. I was hoping
to have the truck before Christmas, but that seems impossible now. Any
information is greatly appreciated.

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, 14 Dec 1998 15:24:22 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

Wow, you guys are good at mentioning vehicles of the model years I have
experience with! All the info (sales and manual) on both the '87 and '96
(which either I have owned, or members of my family currently own, along
with a '90 Bronco and a '95 F250HD, all 4WD except the '87) have said that
the factory does not recommend snow plow equipment to be used with the
F-150 chassis in those years. They recommend at least a 250 (unfortunately
a 4x4 LD 250 wasn't offered in '95 or '96). But they did offer a "heavy
duty front suspension" package on that era F-150. While it isn't a snow
plow package, it has all the basic elements of one. (I checked this info
with the '95 and '96 catalogs). So next time you might want to check your
facts. The current F-150 does offer a snow plow package, as does the 250LD,
and will handle a plow just fine. I've never needed to use a plow, but I
don't doubt that the old F-150/U-150 (Bronco) would do just fine with it as
well.

Have you ever looked under a '97+ F-150? Probably not. I have my dad's '90
Bronco here right now to do some work on it (bad IAB valve). My neighbor
has a '97 F-150 4X4 parked in the next driveway over. I just looked under
both with a light and the newer frame is thicker, larger, and has more
crossbracing. And the TTB brackets, radius arms, and axle beams on this
U150 are not made of a material that is any thicker in gauge than the
A-arms or bracketry on the newer truck. And since the radius arm brackets
and the TTB piviot points are held further off the frame than the A-arm
pickups on the '97, more load (moment) need to be carried by the brackets.
So to be stronger, they'd have to be made of a thicker gauge material, and
they are not. Plus, the LH TTB axle has to carry the extra weight of the
Dana 44IFS front differential, while the newer truck mounts its front drive
axle on a seperate bracket. This reduces unsprung weight which adds to the
better driving manners of the new truck and reduces the load on the
brackets that hold the suspension to the frame. But in favor of the older
model, the U-joints on the front axleshafts are probably stronger than the
CV joints of the newer truck. The swing-axles did and still do make a lot
of sense on the HD/SD trucks, especially since they are made of forged
steel and have kingpins instead of the stamped steel parts with balljoints
that the F-150 had. But on the LD trucks, they led to uncompetitive driving
manners while not adding any extra strength.

So I'd really like you to justify your "MOMMIFIED" comment...because I
don't think you can. A good deal of the improved NVH on the newer truck is
directly attributable to the stiffer chassis and body. Note that I NEVER
said that the old truck was inherently weak. But just because the old truck
had swing axles and angular styling does not mean that the underlying
vehicle is stronger, will move a larger load, or last longer on the job
site.

Rob


At 6:46 PM -0800 12/10/98, Frank Spor wrote:
>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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:57:42 -0800
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

At 7:40 PM -0500 12/10/98, Ken Payne wrote:

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

Whoops, should've said current instead of previous. Never claimed that you
hadn't seen ANY 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.

Hmm, a few years ago I concurrently had a '68 F-100 and a '87 F-150, both
2WD with twin-I-beam front suspension. FWIW, the '68 had a much smaller
frame than the '87 had, not to mention the '97.

>>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.

I tend to disagree with this when it comes to the F-150, but agree with
this on the 250 and 350. The 250 and 350 (note I'm talking about the last
gen vehicles, circa 1980-1997) had very strong forged I-beams and kingpins.
And these axles were connected to big brackets. OTOH, the 150 had
stamped-steel axles and ball joints, and were no where near as strong as
the forged parts on the larger trucks. In my '87, its suspension developed
a tendency never to hold an alignment. Finally it came so far out of spec
that it developed a horrible vibration at around 45mph. This vibration got
so bad that it was almost impossible to control the vehicle. Replacing the
tires and wheels didn't change this behavior, so I took it to a suspension
specialist that had extensive experience in Ford Twin-I-Beam suspensions.
He replaced the ball-joints, tie-rod ends, and the bushings. That corrected
the vibration, but it still couldn't be aligned to factory specs. So we
replaced the stamped I-beams with a new set. It was then able to be aligned
correctly and the truck drove fine thereafter. The gentleman doing the
repairs said that this behavior was not uncommon with the F-150 of that
era, and recommended that if I ever got a new one, to get a F-250 or better
as to take advantage of its superior forged-steel front suspension. As a
matter of fact, that is what he drove.

>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.

It is both, depending on configuration. While you will get a poorer ride by
stiffening up the spring rate, it is only directly comparable when the
suspensions are identical in design. There is a big difference in the
operation of the TIB swing-axle suspension and an A-arm one. The biggest
problem with the TIB system is the large unsprung weight that the system
carries and the wild swings in camber the suspension generates as it runs
through its travel. Neither high unsprung weight or wild camber changes
directly lead to a stronger suspension, but they do directly lead to poorer
driving dynamics. So the new LD trucks have an IFS that addresses these
faults with the TIB setup while being engineered with big enough components
to have at least the same amount of strength and durability. With a TIB
system, a great deal of the tuning of the spring rates and shock dampening
is a direct result of having to control the movements of the suspension
components. Unfortunately this extra springing and dampening isn't helping
the vehicle hold the road any better or carry any extra weight...it is just
compensating for the added weight and inertia of the suspension components.
OTOH, the newer A-arm suspension has less unsprung weight, so the shocks
and springs don't have to work as hard to control the weight of the
suspension. So the spring rates and dampening can be better tuned to smooth
out the bumps in the road instead of the inertia of the axle beams. Also,
since the A-arms can hold the contact patch of the tire more perpendicular
to the road surface, even when the suspension is moving through its travel,
a greater percentage of the tire is making contact with the road. This
leads to better tire wear and better handling. In the end, the A-arm
suspension is a much better solution than the TIB was for the LD trucks. It
can claim good strength, great ride and handling, and improved tire wear,
while all the TIB could claim on the older generation F-150 was good
strength. OTOH, the TIB suspension was the better choice on the HD/SD
trucks, where incredible strength (thanks to its superior larger, forged
axles) is of greater importance than ride or handling. So I am very happy
with the direction both the LD F150/250 and the SD 250-350 have gone.

Also, the sagging you seem to be talking about is in the rear suspension,
which has a design practically identical to the rear suspension of its
predecessor. This is due to the ride-biased tuning of the Payload Package
#1 that comes on most of the trucks. Ford has become much better since the
'97 redesign of offering different suspension packages to better suit the
intended use of the truck. By comparing the '96 and '99 catalogs, the '96
model only had one payload package for most of the F-150 line. OTOH, the
'99 offers 3 different packages on regular cab 4x2 models, and all 250LD
models have a choice between 2 GVWR/payload packages. Also, for '99 the V8
models have a higher GVWR than before, so the springs were probably firmed
up in response to this problem.

There is no comparison as well when it comes to the quality of the body
riding on the frame. The bodyshell is much stiffer than before, and this is
a difference you can feel from the first drive. The steering column no
longer shakes and quivers in your hands as you drive over a bumpy surface.
Squeeks and rattles are dramatically reduced, along with road and wind
noise. Get out and close the doors on both back to back... I've done this
with a '90 Bronco and a '97 F-150, along with a '96 F-150 and a '99
Expedition. Again, no comparison. The doors on the new body fit tighter to
the body and the assembly equipment aligns the doors to the body noticeably
better on the newer units. And the doors close with a solid thud on the
newer one, giving a feeling of much better quality than the clank the older
latches make while closing their door. While the old models had a pretty
solid feel in this comparison, the newer one feels significantly better.
And after examining the sheetmetal edges of the doors, bed, and hood; and
taping them as well, the older model isn't any thicker or heavier. I forgot
to check the bumpers, but the older one wasn't exactly known for staying
intact in a collision (I replaced the stock rear bumper 2 times on my '87
due to collision damage. While the bumper was destroyed, the body and frame
stayed intact). The only complaint I've ever heard about the new bumpers is
some people had some light surface rust on the inside. I just checked the
rear bumper of the '90 Bronco and it is pretty rusted on the inside, but
the outside still looks good. I'm not expecting anything different on the
new ones. Again, angular lines do not have any inherent strength advantage
on a body in comparison to smooth curves. While opinions on styling vary
and it us useless to try to debate personal opinion on the looks of these
two generations. But the bodyshell that these smooth panels are connected
to is noticeably stiffer than the bodyshell that the more angular
sheetmetal was bolted to, and it would be a stretch to argue otherwise.

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

Emphasis using "***" is not something in common use, while using capitals
for emphasis is. I don't see the problem with capitalizing 3 words to make
a point, it is hardly as annoying to the eye like writing an entire
sentence or paragraph in caps would be. Now that is a problem!

Rob


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:13:54 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

>Whoops, should've said current instead of previous. Never claimed that you
>hadn't seen ANY frame or suspension.

Wrong again!

- -snip-, -snip- and more -snip-

Dejavue? I thought Ford learned their lesson with the Unibody trucks.
They learned that stiffer bodys are *not* desirable in a truck. I
guess they forgot.
>
>>***emphasize*** with astericks. No need to shout please.
>
>Emphasis using "***" is not something in common use, while using capitals
>for emphasis is.

12 years ago, any caps in email was considered shouting. Emphasis was
astericks and underlined arrows.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why did Ford completely abandon the current F series when then made
the SD? It's probably very similar to what goes on in the programming
field: you can't build a stronger product on a weaker design. I suggest
that, again, you check Dejanews. When the SD was announced, there was
a resounding cry of rejoicing. I've even heard there are plans to make
a F150 SD. Looks like the F150 LD might have the rug pulled out from
under it. Much as I like Ford, I abandoned the idea of buying another
new Ford truck.... then Ford announced the SD and changed my mind.

While your argument was very eloquent, it simply doesn't jive with
the experience of many people who tried to do the same work with the
newer trucks that they did with the older truck. I researched the 97
F150, made note of the (numerous) complaints and topics on this list
and also on the newsgroups. I drove them and crawl under a few of them
too and it reminded me of being under an overgrown Taurus. I think
an F150 makes a great family truck and very light work truck - just
as Ford designed them to be.

Ken



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:33:21 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: FTE 97up - Re: V-10 / Piston slap

I have both the 5.4L (in a '98 Expedition) and the V-10 (in a F-350
SuperDuty 4X4 SC / LB). I have no piston slap and nobody at my dealer has
heard of any customers with "piston slap" (and they sell a lot of
vehicles) - I know the service, mechanics and parts guys very well. I just
picked up the F-350 V-10, so I will let every know if problems develop. So
far I am very happy, the V-10 is the smoothest idling engine I have ever
had, and it has great throttle response. It has tons of pickup and revs
strongly to 4000 rpm (I did not rev further, I only have 25 miles on it). I
have the SuperCab 8' bed (158" wheelbase). I strongly recommend the 8' bed
with the SuperCab. The truck is very balanced looking and of course, you
get a lot of cargo room which is the basic purpose of getting a pickup for
most people. Also, the long bed with the SuperCab looks much more level vs.
the "wedge-shaped high ass end" of the regular cab or the SuperCab shortbed.


Keith




- -----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin R. MacRAE
To: Spectrum-EHS worldnet.att.net
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 7:12 PM


>Keith,
> Sorry, I thought I'd already written back to you.....just checked the
>"Out" box and looks like I didnt.
> Regarding the V10 engine, I am curious.....I might end up getting the
>extended cab 250 SD 4wd instead of just the reg cab. I am sure that the
>extra HPs would come in handy......what kind of issues will I be looking at
>with the V10?
> ---Is gas mileage going to just drop through the floor???
> ---Is the V10 as durable as the 5.4?
> ---And last, does it have this same piston slap as the 5.4?? What's the
>story on that??? I've heard it mentioned, about some piston slap when cold
>on the 5.4.....is this a big deal/common problem and did Ford ever address
>it?? (or do you just have to plug your ears until it warms up???)
>
>
>Thanks, Ben
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:47:03 -0600
From: "Ronald Palmer"
Subject: FTE 97up - 3:55 Limited Slip Questions

Does anyone out there know if there is a difference with the 3:55 limited
slip rear axle if your have the 4.6L engine or the 5.4L engine?

My questions are as follows:

If you get the 4.6L engine, do you get a lighter version of the 3:55 limited
slip than if you would have bought the 5.4L?

How can I verify what my truck actually has in it, other than pulling the
cover, which I really do not want to do.

If the above statement is true, is there actually a light duty version and a
heavy duty version of the 3:55LS for the F150?

A friend has the exact same truck that I have, except he has the 5.4L
engine. We are both supposed to have the 3:55LS according to the window
stickers, but the rear axle housing is much larger in his truck.

Nathan Bernard or Tim Alsop.......any input???

Any information you all may have will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in Advance

Ron


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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:19:42 EST
From: RSnovi aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - FTE 97up

Well i had another opportunity for my F2504x4 SD PSD SC to shine today, pulled
a good size 2 horse trailer, 5-6k lbs.approx 200 miles., i did pull in OD,
75 mph . When i went to the OD off , it seems like quite a bit of rpms to
have for what work you are doing. I may be worn but it does burn alot more
diesel i noticed when i experimented to see what it liked. One thing i really
can say is how it held 75 mph up a steady grade on highway ( yes there is
hills in FL!) I have never yet seen something hold speed so nice up a grade.

Somethings i think they can improve on are, Is it just me or does it seem like....


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.