97up-list-digest Wednesday, December 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 311



=======================================================================
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 - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
FTE 97up - 99 F250LD Engine
FTE 97up - 53 day delivery on F-350
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - 99 F250LD Engine
RE: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay
FTE 97up - F-250/350 Comprehensive Information
FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?
Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)
Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)
Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)
RE: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.
FTE 97up - Re: Pre-post lube system wanted
Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:56:39 -0500
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

Man, I don't even own a F150 and I think you are starting to sound offensive. I
have several friends and relatives that own the new F150 and I like them. My
best friend has one, and I do all the work on it. True Ford has capitalized on
the light duty market with plushier interiors, better rides, and more options.
However, I haven't read anywhere nor experienced any shortcomings in it's
ability to do work (compared to other half ton trucks).

Also, who said that Ford completely abandoned the 150's? Where did you here
that? Any information that I have ever come across has always said that Ford
intended for there to be two different designs from the beginning of this latest
redesign.

As far as the older F150's being stronger than the new ones... Well that's true
of all trucks, even the SD's. My father has done things with his '78 F150 that
I would never ask my 99 F250 SD to do. Case in point: His truck is a F150
regular cab, long bed, 300 I6, 3spd manual (with a granddaddy gear, low low, or
whatever you prefer to call it), 4x4. He bought it new in '78. In 1984, he
bought a POS used Ch#vy single axle dumptruck. It had a fuel problem that he
thought he had fixed. Well a few miles from home and fully loaded with crushed
limestone, he found out otherwise. He and my grandfather towed that dumptruck
home with my father's F150. Now you are talking about a dump truck that, empty,
weighs 5.25 tons. That's 10,500lbs. It had a load of about 10 tons on it.
That's about 20,000 lbs. On top of that, the road was rather hilly and were
talking 30,000+lbs. Granted he did it in 1st gear (which again was a low low
gear) and had the transfer case in low with the front-end locked in. It was a
very slow but moving operation. He still drives that same truck today.

My personal opinion is, I would never do that with a 1996 F150, 1998 F150, or
even 1999 SD. If some one else wants to, go ahead and let me know ho it turns
out. I would be very curious.

Any way it seems like this whole thing is turning more emotional than factual.
Can some one provide us with proof that the newest F150 is or is not up to par
of being a quality 1/2 ton pickup. No conspiracy theories or assumptions.
Fact.

Thanks,
Chad


Ken Payne wrote:

> >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: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 10:34:33 EST
From: Y3Man aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 F250LD Engine

I just bought a 99 F250LD with the 5.4L engine. During acceleration under
moderate throttle, I noticed that the engine drops 300-500 RPM's for a short
period of time (a few seconds) then will continue to rev higher as it should.
This is perplexing since the power drops noticeably (along with the RPM's) and
usually occurs between 2000-3000 RPM's.

This can't be normal and I was wondering if anyone has/had a similar
experience with this type of problem. I just want as much info as I can
before I take it in for warranty service. Thanks.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:02:52 GMT
From: bturner ida.org (Ben Turner)
Subject: FTE 97up - 53 day delivery on F-350

Yet another delivery date announcement:

On October 16th, my wife and I ordered a F-350 Lariat CC LWB DRW
4WD PSD AUTO with 4.10LS, ESOF, power trailer tow mirrors, tow package,
captains chairs, radio/cassette/CD, rear-step bumper and spare tire
(in Woodland Green). The truck was delivered to the dealer on December 8th
(53 days) and was prepped and ready on the 9th. Due to business travel, we
picked it up on the 11th. While it has had us hopping around (arranging a
trade and financing, arranging for some aftermarket "neccessities"), this
earlier than anticipated delivery has been a very nice pre-holiday surprise.

Our thanks go out to all those participating in (and maintaining) this
list. The discussions helped hone our final choices to make this dream truck
actually fulfill our expectations (performance and comfort). The frank
explanations of the realities of the ordering process helped us in selecting
a dealer with whom to place our order. Kudos to John Fee and Battlefield
Ford's commercial truck sales division in Manassas VA for a job well done.

Best,
Ben Turner
bturner ida.org

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:25:44 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

At 09:56 AM 12/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Man, I don't even own a F150 and I think you are starting to sound
offensive. I
>have several friends and relatives that own the new F150 and I like them. My
>best friend has one, and I do all the work on it. True Ford has
capitalized on
>the light duty market with plushier interiors, better rides, and more
options.
>However, I haven't read anywhere nor experienced any shortcomings in it's
>ability to do work (compared to other half ton trucks).

What's so offensive about my not being impressed by them? Its not different
than my feelings about HP. HP in the 80s stunk. Not until the 90s did the
auto companies figure out (again) that the market wants horsepower, even if
MPG suffers. They also figured out that the home consumer market for light
duty trucks is large and changed the designs to match the needs of that
market.
What's so offensive about my opinion that the suspension is weaker? Its
built for what it's used for. Same goes for the SD, its built for its
intended market.

>Also, who said that Ford completely abandoned the 150's?

Let me reword that... Ford completely abandoned the design of the F150 when
designing the SD.

>Where did you here
>that?

Ford has repeatedly stated that the SD is an all new on a new chassis
produced completely seperate from the F150.

>Any information that I have ever come across has always said that Ford
>intended for there to be two different designs from the beginning of this
latest
>redesign.

Based on the enormous demand for the SD, I'm willing to bet that if Ford
produces an F150 SD thats priced not much higher than the F150 LD that
it will skyrocket.

>As far as the older F150's being stronger than the new ones... Well
that's true
>of all trucks, even the SD's. My father has done things with his '78 F150
that

So you agree with me, but you find it offensive?

>Can some one provide us with proof that the newest F150 is or is not up to
par
>of being a quality 1/2 ton pickup.

www.alldata.com, look up consumer recalls and service bulletins. Go back
to previous models.

>No conspiracy theories or assumptions.
>Fact.

There's plenty of it there. The number of recalls and TSBs on the LD line
is astounding. So far the SD seems to be holding up well in this
department but
its still too soon to know for sure.

I love Ford vehicles, I own 4 of them. I've spent an enormous amount of
personal time and money maintain the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site and
lists. Anyone who questions my devotion to FoMoMo vehicles is nuts. All
I drive is Ford. But I'm also realistic about Ford's shortcomings. Ford
has had serious problems with transmissions in the Taurus line. The Tempo
was a major wart, many Ford dealerships have enormous customer service
problems and Explorer owners have lots of complaints (check out the Explorer
usenet group).

It really stinks that one of the highest rated cars for reliability (the
Escort) is the cheapest Ford produces. You would think that the expensive
vehicles would have less problems (the Lincoln seems to the be the
exception to this, based on Edmunds quality ratings).

Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:30:02 -0800
From: Ken Peterson
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99 F250LD Engine

>I just bought a 99 F250LD with the 5.4L engine. During acceleration under
>moderate throttle, I noticed that the engine drops 300-500 RPM's for a short
>period of time (a few seconds) then will continue to rev higher as it should.
>This is perplexing since the power drops noticeably (along with the RPM's) and
>usually occurs between 2000-3000 RPM's.

I have the same truck, but 1998 model. No such behavior noted, unless . . .

Have you driven an automatic before? (no, no ... just kidding :-) )

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:20:36 -0600
From: John Walker
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - FW: Sport Package Delay

Thanks for the reply Nathan. I ordered a 4x2, Regular Cab, Short Bed =
(Regular panel side bed), 4.6L/5-speed. The color is Bright Red =
Clearcoat with medium prarie tan interior. Additional options include: =
floormats, CD player (No CD changer), sliding rear window and 3.55 =
limited slip axle. Thanks for the information!

John Walker =20

- -----Original Message-----
From: Union Auto [SMTP:unionaut adiis.net]
Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 5:13 PM
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
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

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:12:33 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: FTE 97up - F-250/350 Comprehensive Information

I just received my F-350 / SuperDuty / 4X4 / V-10 / LongBed / SuperCab /
3.73LS / all the goodies. so far so good. I asked my dealer for the
service (workshop) manuals, I said I would purchase them (I did so for my
other vehicles, e.g., Expedition and Explorer). They are printed by a
company "helms Corp." The Volume 1 is $121! Volume 2 is $180!! Volume 3
is $125!!! I am in the wrong business, I should be selling Ford Service
Manuals!!! Anyway, as I was talking with my dealer/sales rep., I asked him
if there was any other information on the F-Series Superduties because the
Owner's Manual was very simple and not very specific and did not go into any
detail on the systems. He gave me a thick package called the Ford F-Series
SuperDuty "Education and Training Package". It consists of a Specification
Guide and a Marketing Guide. What a wealth of information!!! Includes
loads of specific information such as number of leafs with different spring
setups, type of pinion gear mounting (overhung), make of rear axle drive
(Hotchkiss), section modulus of frame (5.6 c.i.), transfer case ratios
(2.72:1 and 1.0:1), deflection rate and width of rear leaf springs (5200# =
430 lb../in per spring 3.00 in. width), etc., etc. The Marketing guide
also has a wealth of information. Nathan, I know anyone can purchase the
Workshop Manuals, but how can others on this list get the "Ford Education
and Training - Specification and Marketing Guide" documents?? I think
everyone with a SuperDuty would benefit from having them.


Keith




- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Payne
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?


>At 09:56 AM 12/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Man, I don't even own a F150 and I think you are starting to sound
>offensive. I
>>have several friends and relatives that own the new F150 and I like them.
My
>>best friend has one, and I do all the work on it. True Ford has
>capitalized on
>>the light duty market with plushier interiors, better rides, and more
>options.
>>However, I haven't read anywhere nor experienced any shortcomings in it's
>>ability to do work (compared to other half ton trucks).
>
>What's so offensive about my not being impressed by them? Its not
different
>than my feelings about HP. HP in the 80s stunk. Not until the 90s did the
>auto companies figure out (again) that the market wants horsepower, even if
>MPG suffers. They also figured out that the home consumer market for light
>duty trucks is large and changed the designs to match the needs of that
>market.
>What's so offensive about my opinion that the suspension is weaker? Its
>built for what it's used for. Same goes for the SD, its built for its
>intended market.
>
>>Also, who said that Ford completely abandoned the 150's?
>
>Let me reword that... Ford completely abandoned the design of the F150 when
>designing the SD.
>
>>Where did you here
>>that?
>
>Ford has repeatedly stated that the SD is an all new on a new chassis
>produced completely seperate from the F150.
>
>>Any information that I have ever come across has always said that Ford
>>intended for there to be two different designs from the beginning of this
>latest
>>redesign.
>
>Based on the enormous demand for the SD, I'm willing to bet that if Ford
>produces an F150 SD thats priced not much higher than the F150 LD that
>it will skyrocket.
>
>>As far as the older F150's being stronger than the new ones... Well
>that's true
>>of all trucks, even the SD's. My father has done things with his '78 F150
>that
>
>So you agree with me, but you find it offensive?
>
>>Can some one provide us with proof that the newest F150 is or is not up to
>par
>>of being a quality 1/2 ton pickup.
>
>www.alldata.com, look up consumer recalls and service bulletins. Go back
>to previous models.
>
>>No conspiracy theories or assumptions.
>>Fact.
>
>There's plenty of it there. The number of recalls and TSBs on the LD line
>is astounding. So far the SD seems to be holding up well in this
>department but
>its still too soon to know for sure.
>
>I love Ford vehicles, I own 4 of them. I've spent an enormous amount of
>personal time and money maintain the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site and
>lists. Anyone who questions my devotion to FoMoMo vehicles is nuts. All
>I drive is Ford. But I'm also realistic about Ford's shortcomings. Ford
>has had serious problems with transmissions in the Taurus line. The Tempo
>was a major wart, many Ford dealerships have enormous customer service
>problems and Explorer owners have lots of complaints (check out the
Explorer
>usenet group).
>
>It really stinks that one of the highest rated cars for reliability (the
>Escort) is the cheapest Ford produces. You would think that the expensive
>vehicles would have less problems (the Lincoln seems to the be the
>exception to this, based on Edmunds quality ratings).
>
>Ken
>
>== 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: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:27:55 -0800
From: Alex Peyzner
Subject: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)

I know this subject has been thoroughly discussed already but I'd like to
add one more spin to it.

For someone who is thinking of adding bigger tires, like 285s or even 295s,
wouldn't it make sense to order 4.30 gears so the truck would essentially
end up with a final drive ratio somewhere between 3.73 and 4.30? Isn't that
a good reason to choose 4.30?

Am I right or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance,
- -Alex


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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:53:14 -0500
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

Sorry for the length!!

Ken Payne wrote:

> What's so offensive about my not being impressed by them?

I think it was the presentation, nearly implying (my words) they are useless (as)
pickups.

> Its not different
> than my feelings about HP. HP in the 80s stunk. Not until the 90s did the
> auto companies figure out (again) that the market wants horsepower, even if
> MPG suffers. They also figured out that the home consumer market for light
> duty trucks is large and changed the designs to match the needs of that
> market.
> What's so offensive about my opinion that the suspension is weaker?

Well... I think you are wrong, but that's not what's offensive. I personally
think it's gone much further than, "Hey. It's not for me." You seem almost
hell-bent on proving their inferiority.

> Its
> built for what it's used for. Same goes for the SD, its built for its
> intended market.
>
> >Also, who said that Ford completely abandoned the 150's?
>
> Let me reword that... Ford completely abandoned the design of the F150 when
> designing the SD.

That's still not true. The design carried over for 1998 and 1999. I think you
are referring to the design of the SD's. However I don't think Ford ever
considered making them look like the F150 or 250LD. I think they realized that
things that make a light duty truck a better light duty truck (don't read car
here) were not the same things that make a HD truck better. You probably noticed
that Chevy has jumped on this bandwagon already and I wouldn't be surprised that
Dodge wouldn't use it on it's next redesign.

>
>
> >Where did you here
> >that?
>
> Ford has repeatedly stated that the SD is an all new on a new chassis
> produced completely seperate from the F150.

And it is very true. But I don't see any abandonment there. I guess what I am
saying here is, I have always thought Ford intended to divide them up. Not that
they went back to the drawing boards due to disappointment with the F150. I am no
authority on Ford's corporate objectives and could be wrong, but I don't think
that I am.

> Based on the enormous demand for the SD, I'm willing to bet that if Ford
> produces an F150 SD thats priced not much higher than the F150 LD that
> it will skyrocket.

I would agree with that. I wouldn't use the word 'skyrocket' and I think it would
be driven primarily on looks alone which is irrelevant to mechanical ability.
Dodge proved that looks make a big difference.

> >As far as the older F150's being stronger than the new ones... Well
> that's true
> >of all trucks, even the SD's. My father has done things with his '78 F150
> that
>
> So you agree with me, but you find it offensive?

My point was you could apply what you said to today's superduties, which you
defend. So I guess I am wondering were your motives originate. BTW, I don't find
what you say to be personally offending. If I wasn't clear I mean, I think you
come off as belittling all of the new half ton owners.

> www.alldata.com, look up consumer recalls and service bulletins. Go back
> to previous models.

>

> There's plenty of it there. The number of recalls and TSBs on the LD line
> is astounding. So far the SD seems to be holding up well in this
> department but
> its still too soon to know for sure.

I'll look.

>
>
> I love Ford vehicles, I own 4 of them. I've spent an enormous amount of
> personal time and money maintain the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site and
> lists. Anyone who questions my devotion to FoMoMo vehicles is nuts. All

Don't ever think that I don't appreciate your hard work and free services. I
think you're great. I just disagree on this point.

>

> I drive is Ford. But I'm also realistic about Ford's shortcomings. Ford
> has had serious problems with transmissions in the Taurus line. The Tempo
> was a major wart, many Ford dealerships have enormous customer service
> problems and Explorer owners have lots of complaints (check out the Explorer
> usenet group).
>
> It really stinks that one of the highest rated cars for reliability (the
> Escort) is the cheapest Ford produces. You would think that the expensive
> vehicles would have less problems (the Lincoln seems to the be the
> exception to this, based on Edmunds quality ratings).

I'll agree that I have little interest in owning a Ford car.

>
>
> Ken

Happy Holidays all,
Chad

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 17:01:51 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Old F-150 had strong I-beams?

>
>Well... I think you are wrong, but that's not what's offensive. I personally
>think it's gone much further than, "Hey. It's not for me." You seem almost
>hell-bent on proving their inferiority.

This all started because I said that the vast majority of truck
owners don't use their trucks as trucks but rather as large cars.
Some people reacted and suddenly started talking about how tough
the new trucks are compared to the older trucks. It was not meant
to belittle everyone. I responded to a post that its tougher.
I thought this was a huge error. I'm just as likely to point
out what I believe is an error if someone starts talking about
how great Slick 50 is. Much of what I said is factual (based on
recall/TSBs and complaints I've read) and I don't know why this
is so disconcerting to some. Ford really needs to get their act
together in many areas. The truck/SUV cash cow is going to settle
down sooner or later.

Its no different than stating the F250 has better towing capacity
than the F150. Stating that one truck is inherently stronger
than others is not a personal attack, though some seem to have
taken it that way.

I'm bowing out of this topic.....
Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:37:28 -0700
From: "Brandt Dennehy"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)

Yes, the final drive ratio would end up between 4.30 and 3.73 when you put
larger tires on your V-10. I have a 3.73 V-10, in which I just went from
235/85 highway tires to 255/85 all-terrain. The ride has improved, they
look much better, and they have much more grip on the ice and snow
(especially going up passes and 4x4ing in about 15" of snow). I had these
tires siped, which a lot of people do here in SW Montana for better grip on
the icy roads. The only downfall is that the larger diameter tires has
shifted my axle ratio to about 3.60 and my speedometer off by 4.4%. I don't
notice much difference at all.....maybe a slight decrease in acceleration in
second gear, but I'm not really sure....it is so slight that I can't decide.
I haven't pulled my trailer with it yet, but the larger tires are allowing
me to go a little bit faster in 3rd, which seems to have filled the large
gap between 3rd and 4th.

Anyway, back to the point. If they had the V-10 in a 4.10 ratio, I would
have went with that, but a 4.30 was just wasn't practicle for me...it seems
like a pretty big jump between 3.73 and 4.30, and unless you have MAJOR
towing to do, I wouldn't worry about it. The V-10, even with a 3.60 ratio
does great (plenty of power).

>>Brandt


- -----Original Message-----
From: Alex Peyzner
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:45 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)


>I know this subject has been thoroughly discussed already but I'd like to
>add one more spin to it.
>
>For someone who is thinking of adding bigger tires, like 285s or even 295s,
>wouldn't it make sense to order 4.30 gears so the truck would essentially
>end up with a final drive ratio somewhere between 3.73 and 4.30? Isn't that
>a good reason to choose 4.30?
>
>Am I right or am I missing something?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>-Alex
>
>
>== 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: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:09:29 -0500
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)

Yes, you are correct. Bigger tires would bring a 4.30 ratio down towards an
effective 4.20, 4.10 or even 3.73 ratio, if the tires were big (tall)
enough.

Keith



- -----Original Message-----
From: Alex Peyzner
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 3:31 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)


>I know this subject has been thoroughly discussed already but I'd like to
>add one more spin to it.
>
>For someone who is thinking of adding bigger tires, like 285s or even 295s,
>wouldn't it make sense to order 4.30 gears so the truck would essentially
>end up with a final drive ratio somewhere between 3.73 and 4.30? Isn't that
>a good reason to choose 4.30?
>
>Am I right or am I missing something?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>-Alex
>
>
>== 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: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 18:04:16 -0700
From: "Brandt Dennehy"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)

Yes, changing to a 285/75 would bring the 4.30 down to a 4.15 and a 295/75
would bring the 4.30 down to a 4.08 ratio (these figures are assuming you
purchase the Superduty with the factory tires (235/85 or 265/75). In order
to bring the 4.30 down to a 3.73, you would need to put on a tire 36.5
inches tall. A 235/85 and 265/75 are both about 31.7 inches tall; a 285/75
is 32.83 inches tall; a 255/85 is 33.06 inches tall; and a 295/75 is 33.42
inches tall. All of these figures are assuming the wheels are 16 inch.

- -Brandt



- -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Veren
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more
thought...)


>Yes, you are correct. Bigger tires would bring a 4.30 ratio down towards
an
>effective 4.20, 4.10 or even 3.73 ratio, if the tires were big (tall)
>enough.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Peyzner
>To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
>Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 3:31 PM
>Subject: FTE 97up - v10 5-speed with 3.73LS or 4.30LS (one more thought...)
>
>
>>I know this subject has been thoroughly discussed already but I'd like to
>>add one more spin to it.
>>
>>For someone who is thinking of adding bigger tires, like 285s or even
295s,
>>wouldn't it make sense to order 4.30 gears so the truck would essentially
>>end up with a final drive ratio somewhere between 3.73 and 4.30? Isn't
that
>>a good reason to choose 4.30?
>>
>>Am I right or am I missing something?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>-Alex
>>
>>
>>== 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
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 21:48:12 -0500
From: "jim schang"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

Is it possible to upgrade my 1998 SD overhead console to include the outside
temperature feature? It is only slightly disapointing thing about my SD that
I would like to change.

jim schang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-97up-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Union Auto
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:29 AM
> To: Ford Truck Enthusiast
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:57:24 -0500
From: RICK KANE
Subject: FTE 97up - Re: Pre-post lube system wanted

I want to put a pre and post lube system on my 99 F-250 PSD. Does
anyone have the name and phone number of a good manufacturer or
supplier? The only one I had seems to have gone out of business. He
was in King Of Prussia, Pa.

Thank you,
Rick Kane

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 20:00:06 -0800
From: "Jose Pomposo Jr."
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.

The question remains, can a SD (or Expedition) overhead console be put into
a F-150 SC?
I really want to do this so any information would be greatly appreciated.
- -----Original Message-----
From: jim schang
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Lariat SD overhead console.


>Is it possible to upgrade my 1998 SD overhead console to include the....


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.