97up-list-digest Thursday, May 27 1999 Volume 02 : Number 141



=======================================================================
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 - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust
RE: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust
FTE 97up - Denver f-150 memorial day get together!
RE: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust
FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks"
RE: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks"
FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"
Re: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust
RE: FTE 97up - gear question.. was psd straight exaust.
FTE 97up - gear question
Re: FTE 97up - gear question.. was psd straight exaust.
Re: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"
RE: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"
FTE 97up - Manual hubs
Re: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"
Re: FTE 97up - Rear window removal - Leaking Roof.
FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply
Re: FTE 97up - Manual hubs
Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply
Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply
Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply
FTE 97up - please explain torque rating
FTE 97up - My 351
FTE 97up - Bad news
Re: FTE 97up - Re: a question about towing (engines and EPA bashers)

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:27:37 -0500
From: DanBrotzman
Subject: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust

I have read with interest about those who have removed catalytic =
converters from their 99 PSD. My 99.5 does not have a converter but I =
have been contemplating removing the muffler. My question is, does the =
turbo quiet the exhaust tone down enough to not give some zealus officer =
who has not filled up his log book of civilian contacts an excuse to =
pull me over. Also, since the maximum boost pressure is controlled by =
the waste gate, will there be any net performance gains? Or is my best =
performance gain with a power chip and leave the exhaust alone? I use =
the truck for continous towing of 8,000 to 12,000# trailers. I have 3.73 =
gears (4X4), but I'm not interested in changing gear ratios.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:56:31 -0500
From: George Rigney
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust

Dan,

Why not replace your muffler with a glass-pack. They're cheap, they provide
some muffling, and the backpressure is nothing compared to a standard
muffler. Another benefit is if you get pulled over you can show the
policeman that you do have a muffler. In many places you can't be ticketed
if you at least have a glass-pack.

George

1974 Gran Torino Elite 351W
1999 F250 SC CC V10

- -----Original Message-----
From: DanBrotzman [mailto:no1windo frontiernet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:28 AM
To: '97up-list-digest ford-trucks.com'
Subject: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust


I have read with interest about those who have removed catalytic converters
from their 99 PSD. My 99.5 does not have a converter but I have been
contemplating removing the muffler. My question is, does the turbo quiet the
exhaust tone down enough to not give some zealus officer who has not filled
up his log book of civilian contacts an excuse to pull me over. Also, since
the maximum boost pressure is controlled by the waste gate, will there be
any net performance gains? Or is my best performance gain with a power chip
and leave the exhaust alone? I use the truck for continous towing of 8,000
to 12,000# trailers. I have 3.73 gears (4X4), but I'm not interested in
changing gear ratios.

== 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: Wed, 26 May 99 07:07:03 +0000
From: mattadams pcisys.com
Subject: FTE 97up - Denver f-150 memorial day get together!

anyone on the list who is interested is welcome to attend. It will be at Rick
Helfers house. To get there take I-25 to Evans,East on Evans to Holly (1 mile)
turn North on Holly to Nebraska (2 miles) turn east on Nebraska(2nd house on
right). The address is 5630 East Nebraska Way in Denver. We will be havin a
fun time, checking out others F-150's (and Im told there will be a few Mustangs
there as well). It'd be a good chance to meet some list members from the
Denver area! Anyone interested can contact me at mattadams pcisys.com, or Rick
at rick5630 gateway.net. Hope to see you
there!

- ---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:57:44 -0500
From: "Jeff Schapker"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust

I have the Banks Stinger and the muffler is straight through, no
restrictions. The truck sounds a lot better but it is not any louder than
stock. If you want the power this is the right way to go.
Jeff Schapker
1999 F350 PSD,CC, Lariat,4x4,Man.Hubs,Auto,DRW,4.10 LS,Off-Road Pkg,Camper
Pkg,Trailer Tow Pkg,Trailer Tow Mirrors,Cat Delete,Rhino Liner,Superlift
2"Lift,SnugLid Tonneau Cover,Banks Stinger,Triple Full Pillar Gauge Mount



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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:33:56 -0500
From: "Charles Abraham"
Subject: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks"

Enlightening interview with Ford's Powertrain Operations
Vice President John Huston,

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/new_ford_engine.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:29:24 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks"

Interesting how Mr. Huston explains the torque curve advantage
in his initial question, then states that the
engine is not a great choice for trucks in
the last statement.

My brother just purchased a 99 with the
4.6L and was commenting upon the lack
of power when towing. (he has a landscaping
trailer). I was surprised to hear this, as I
was quite pleased at my 5.4L performance
when towing a much larger load (25ft
boat, 6000lb + 1000lb trailer) BTW,
this load was formerly towed by the
351 Windsor. I thought the 5.4L did a
better "all around" job. The torque seems
to be available in a much broader rpm range.

We'll have to wait and see if the rods stay
in place. That's one thing I liked about the
351, those huge main bearings and caps.

Steve D'Amelio
Systems Administrator
CVS/Pharmacy
1 CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com

> ----------
> From: Charles Abraham[SMTP:abrahamc agcs.com]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:33 PM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks"
>
> Enlightening interview with Ford's Powertrain Operations
> Vice President John Huston,
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/new_ford_engine.htm
> == 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:34:37 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"

I recently noticed the rear pumpkin on
my 97 (5.4L ext cab) was larger than
the one on my brother's 99 (4.6 ext cab,
off-road)

I assume he has the 8.8" and I have the 9.75"
rear end. Does anyone know what this
larger rear end was packaged with?
I have a tow package on the truck, but
the salesmen never mentioned a larger
pumpkin as part of that package.

Thanks,


Steve D'Amelio
Systems Administrator
CVS/Pharmacy
1 CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:00:47 -0500
From: "Union Auto"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust

It's questionable if it would be quiet enough to keep you out of trouble.
We've got several of the old style Power Strokes running around with
straight pipes and their fairly loud but not like a gas engine. They are
loud enough that if a cop felt like it he could probably ticket you. I
wouldn't expect much of a performance increase. I'd try the chip and see
what happens (Get a pyrometer, though). As for gears the 3.73 (from my
experience) will out pull the 4.10 so I sell 95% of the Diesels with 3.73
(3.55 on older trucks).

Nathan

- ----- Original Message -----
From: DanBrotzman
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 7:27 AM
Subject: FTE 97up - 99.5 PSD - Straight Exhaust


I have read with interest about those who have removed catalytic converters
from their 99 PSD. My 99.5 does not have a converter but I have been
contemplating removing the muffler. My question is, does the turbo quiet the
exhaust tone down enough to not give some zealus officer who has not filled
up his log book of civilian contacts an excuse to pull me over. Also, since
the maximum boost pressure is controlled by the waste gate, will there be
any net performance gains? Or is my best performance gain with a power chip
and leave the exhaust alone? I use the truck for continous towing of 8,000
to 12,000# trailers. I have 3.73 gears (4X4), but I'm not interested in
changing gear ratios.

=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: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:17:33 -0500
From: "Chris Patrick"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - gear question.. was psd straight exaust.

> As for gears the
> 3.73 (from my
> experience) will out pull the 4.10 so I sell 95% of the
> Diesels with 3.73
> (3.55 on older trucks).
>
> Nathan


i dont own a PSD, but am curious on this:

I am an avid 4x4 Jeep enthusiast. in 100% of all cases,
numerically higher gears pull better than numerically lower ones.
using 5.38's for example will significantly improve towing capability, and
climbing ability.
we (jeepers) strive for a crawl ratio of 75:1 or better with a stick, or
45:1 or better with an automatic

for example

nv4500 with 6.32 1st gear
dana 300 with 2.62 low range
4.56 front and rear diffs yeilds a 75:1 crawl, which will tow a locomotive
up a mountian, given traction, even with a stock 258 i-6. add a 4 to 1 gear
kit in the transfer case and we get 115:1 in low gear, which will pull the
mountain under the locomotive.

assume you have a stock i-6 which makes 180 ft/# of torque at 1800 rpm, with
115:1, your rear wheel torque
is approximately 20,000# (more then enough to twist stock axles, u joints,
etc...)


so im curious why on the PSD's does the 3.73 outpull the 4.10? is there a
problem or a quirk with the
fords, or are we talking about two different things?


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:25:26 -0500
From: Perry Klein
Subject: FTE 97up - gear question

I've noticed that the 3.73 gearing seems better on the diesel as well.
Obviously the 4.10 or higher can pull a larger load.
The diesel just doesn't seem build rpm as fast as my v10 does.
I guess with the 4.10's you are sort of rpm limited. The old psd w/ 3.55
we have here
seems quite a bit hotter than the new 99 psd with 4.30's

I think it feels better because the diesel has more than enough
torque to handle the 3.73's and with the taller gearing it accelerates faster.

hope that makes sense.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:38:37 -0400
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - gear question.. was psd straight exaust.

It is well know in drag racing that you can go too high in gearing (e.g.,
over 5.56). What happens is that you cannot keep the motor in the power
band , even with constant shifting (which slows you down). I would imagine
the same concept would apply to towing. A very large ring gear could make
your vehicle act like it has a "worm-gear" drive, fine for slow
constant-speed pulling, but not to good for sustaining continued
acceleration.

Keith


- -----Original Message-----
From: Chris Patrick
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - gear question.. was psd straight exaust.


>> As for gears the
>> 3.73 (from my
>> experience) will out pull the 4.10 so I sell 95% of the
>> Diesels with 3.73
>> (3.55 on older trucks).
>>
>> Nathan
>
>
>i dont own a PSD, but am curious on this:
>
>I am an avid 4x4 Jeep enthusiast. in 100% of all cases,
>numerically higher gears pull better than numerically lower ones.
>using 5.38's for example will significantly improve towing capability, and
>climbing ability.
>we (jeepers) strive for a crawl ratio of 75:1 or better with a stick, or
>45:1 or better with an automatic
>
>for example
>
>nv4500 with 6.32 1st gear
>dana 300 with 2.62 low range
>4.56 front and rear diffs yeilds a 75:1 crawl, which will tow a locomotive
>up a mountian, given traction, even with a stock 258 i-6. add a 4 to 1
gear
>kit in the transfer case and we get 115:1 in low gear, which will pull the
>mountain under the locomotive.
>
>assume you have a stock i-6 which makes 180 ft/# of torque at 1800 rpm,
with
>115:1, your rear wheel torque
>is approximately 20,000# (more then enough to twist stock axles, u joints,
>etc...)
>
>
>so im curious why on the PSD's does the 3.73 outpull the 4.10? is there a
>problem or a quirk with the
>fords, or are we talking about two different things?
>
>
>== 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:30:55 EDT
From: ATUMLAW aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"

In a message dated 5/26/99 2:37:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SMDamelio cvs.com writes:


larger rear end was packaged with? >>

It comes with the 5.4. My question is this the same as a Dana 60?

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:47:37 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"

Thanks for the info, it sure looks like a Dana 60
(light duty). I used to have a heavy duty
60 which was a "full floater". this was
eight lug and you could pull the axles
right out without ever even removing a tire.

I do remember the Dana 60's being 9.75"
(I think)

Steve D'Amelio
Systems Administrator
CVS/Pharmacy
1 CVS Drive
Woonsocket, RI 02895
401-765-1500 x3351 FAX 401-762-4607
mailto:smdamelio cvs.com http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cvs.com

> ----------
> From: ATUMLAW aol.com[SMTP:ATUMLAW aol.com]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 4:30 PM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"
>
> In a message dated 5/26/99 2:37:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> SMDamelio cvs.com writes:
>
>
> larger rear end was packaged with? >>
>
> It comes with the 5.4. My question is this the same as a Dana 60?
>
> Atilla
> == 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:46:50 -0400
From: "Karaus, Dick"
Subject: FTE 97up - Manual hubs

I will be ordering '00 F250 SD XLT 4x4 SB this summer. I would like to
order the manual hubs and not the shift-on-fly. My question is can I lock
the hubs in and drive on the street or highway (with transfer case in 2WD)
and shift into 4 wheel drive via the shift handle to the transfer case
whenever I need 4WD (at the appropriate speed, of course)? Thanks.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:01:52 -0500
From: Steve
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 8.8" rear end vs. 9.75"

"D'Amelio, Stephen M." wrote:

> I recently noticed the rear pumpkin on
> my 97 (5.4L ext cab) was larger than
> the one on my brother's 99 (4.6 ext cab,
> off-road)
>
> I assume he has the 8.8" and I have the 9.75"
> rear end. Does anyone know what this
> larger rear end was packaged with?
> I have a tow package on the truck, but
> the salesmen never mentioned a larger
> pumpkin as part of that package.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve D'Amelio

The 9.75 comes with the 5.4l, as opposed to the standard 8.8 for the
other engines.


- --
Steve #1

'99 F150 Regular Cab 5.4 4X4
'97 Mustang GT
'87 K5 Blazer 350 4X4

"I don't think we should give free room and board to criminals."
"I think they should have to run twelve hours a day on a treadmill and
generate electricity. And if they don't want to run, they can rest in
the chair that's hooked up to the generator." Andy Rooney


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:12:13 -0500
From: Steve
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Rear window removal - Leaking Roof.

Mike Fairleigh wrote:

> Here's something even funnier. After further research (calls to multiple
> Ford dealers here in Kansas City), I've learned that depending on which
> dealer does the repair work, they may just replace the whole glass unit -
> the seal is apparently an integral part of the glass unit and is not
> replaceable by itself! I find that very hard to believe (given that Ford's
> price on the whole unit is probably $1,000 or more), and I plan to dig some
> more tomorrow.
>
>
> Mike Fairleigh
> mikef sky.net
> ...Always remembering our veterans.
>

I've replaced a handful of rear windows on F150s changing out a solid window
for a slider. When the windows come out of the box they have a "gasket" in
place on the glass. The gasket is a sticky gooey tar like substance. When you
pull the window the stuff stretches and pulls apart, so there is no way you
could get it back on with a decent seal. I think the cost for a new window is
about $300, and they probably send them back to Ford to have a new gasket
installed to be used again, but that's just a WAG.
- --
Steve #1

'99 F150 Regular Cab 5.4 4X4
'97 Mustang GT
'87 K5 Blazer 350 4X4

"I don't think we should give free room and board to criminals."
"I think they should have to run twelve hours a day on a treadmill and
generate electricity. And if they don't want to run, they can rest in
the chair that's hooked up to the generator." Andy Rooney


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:45:30 -0400
From: GEORGE CROLL
Subject: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply

Wow

Coming from a ford site and a ford employee this is a pretty damming critique of the triton V-8's as they apply to truck
applications. No mention of the v-10 but the article basically states that the trition v-8 was never designed to be a
heavy duty truck type engine and suggests that long term durability might be an issue with these engines. On the
bright side ford defends the usable power and towing capability of the triton engine which has a low HP to cubic
inch ratio when compared to other engines. I have wondered how chevy got 300 HP out of a 6 liter v-8 and ford
only got 275 out of a 6.8 liter v-10. further the article suggests that ford is already looking at replacing the trition with
a different engine in truck appications. Kind of a different story than the slick sales brochures they give out at ford
dealers.

George Croll
EPA-OAR-ARD
(202)564-0162

>>> Charles Abraham 05/26/99 01:33pm >>>
Enlightening interview with Ford's Powertrain Operations
Vice President John Huston,

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/new_ford_engine.htm
== 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:31:56 -0700
From: johny
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Manual hubs

Sure can. You will probably notice some additional road noise, but not much.
Does it cause additional wear? Sure, but not enough to be real concerned.

Living near the ocean in ca, I don't need to do this, but folks in alaska, or
other areas where the weather is more severe, lock in november and unlock in
april.

Driving with the hubs locked *and* 4Hi engaged is a different issues altogether.

I'll assume you know that's not recommended in high traction street usage.


Karaus, Dick wrote:

> I will be ordering '00 F250 SD XLT 4x4 SB this summer. I would like to
> order the manual hubs and not the shift-on-fly. My question is can I lock
> the hubs in and drive on the street or highway (with transfer case in 2WD)
> and shift into 4 wheel drive via the shift handle to the transfer case
> whenever I need 4WD (at the appropriate speed, of course)? Thanks.
>
> Dick
> == 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:39:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Douglas R. Floyd"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply

I think the Triton was a good step in reengineering an engine. I attribute
its low HP/weight ratio to it being a new engine, therefore it can be
improved upon as time goes on. Pushing 300hp out of the V10 should not be
impossible for Ford in a couple of years.

As for the inline 5, that is a good idea, but it would not put out the
horses and torque that a truck really would need.

I would understand an inline 6 and larger, but those require hood space.

- --
Douglas R. Floyd |
| Quote coming soon.
Disclaimer: |
I speak for myself, not IBM. |
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:04:48 -0400
From: "Keith Veren"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply

Something smells fishy about the article in which a Ford's VP kind of
"bashes" the Triton.

Keith


- -----Original Message-----
From: GEORGE CROLL
To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 6:22 PM
Subject: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply


>Wow
>
>Coming from a ford site and a ford employee this is a pretty damming
critique of the triton V-8's as they apply to truck
>applications. No mention of the v-10 but the article basically states that
the trition v-8 was never designed to be a
>heavy duty truck type engine and suggests that long term durability might
be an issue with these engines. On the
>bright side ford defends the usable power and towing capability of the
triton engine which has a low HP to cubic
>inch ratio when compared to other engines. I have wondered how chevy got
300 HP out of a 6 liter v-8 and ford
>only got 275 out of a 6.8 liter v-10. further the article suggests that
ford is already looking at replacing the trition with
>a different engine in truck appications. Kind of a different story than
the slick sales brochures they give out at ford
>dealers.
>
>George Croll
>EPA-OAR-ARD
>(202)564-0162
>
>>>> Charles Abraham 05/26/99 01:33pm >>>
>Enlightening interview with Ford's Powertrain Operations
>Vice President John Huston,
>
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.blueovalnews.com/new_ford_engine.htm
>== 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: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:10:23 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Ford's Modular V-8 "not a Good Choice for Trucks" -Reply

At 05:45 PM 5/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Wow
>
>Coming from a ford site and a ford employee this is a pretty damming

Its an interview with a Ford employee. It is NOT a Ford site.


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:27:58 -0500
From: "Parker & Heidi"
Subject: FTE 97up - please explain torque rating

hey all,

was trying to explain to my girlfriend just what exactly what torque's
foot-pounds or pounds-feet meant, or rather how to explain it. :)

tia,
parker


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

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:11:23 EDT
From: BigFords1 aol.com
Subject: FTE 97up - My 351

After reading all this I am starting to think that the 351 Windsors are
pretty tough. What is wrong with mine? Yesterday I got beat off the line by
a Honda civic! That really chafes me. I put it to the floor, but it barely
responded. My brother had a 79 F-150 with a 351 that could turn circles on
the pavement. What is wrong with my truck? the only way I can get the
wheels to chirp is by taking a corner too fast. It accelerates so slow I
want to jerk the wheel into a g** d*** bridge embunkment! What could be
wrong? I MUST HAVE MORE POWER!

Power Hungry,

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:24:44 -0800 (AKDT)
From: akmomndad webtv.net (Joseph Veres)
Subject: FTE 97up - Bad news

Hi Y'all -

I purchased a 99 PSD 250 XLT with auto tranny, 3.73 ratio - delivered in
the end of December. I love the truck - but, I took it in to the dealer
(Cal Worthington, Anchorage, Alaska), at 3,400 miles for the oil change
and a list of concerns.

One of my concerns was that when I would accelerate slowly, when it
would make it's last shift change at about 45 mph (when in OD), the
tranny seemed to have to "search" to shift into the final gear. It
wasn't a real obvious problem, in fact just barely noticable.

When I called the dealer this morning to find out what they found out, I
was advised that when the transmission man took out the truck for a test
run, the tranny "crapped out" on him and they had to tow the truck back
to the dealer!

Man, what a shock - and disappointment, but at least it happened when
they were testing it, and not when I was towing my boat over one of our
passes to the ocean!

Anyway, they were tearing it down when I talked to them, and as yet, no
one has any idea as to what the problem might be.

Nathan - or anyone else - any ideas. I haven't even towed anything with
it yet. Seems awlfully early to have a problem - is this a sign of
things to come with this tranny? I've never had a automatic before -
always a stick, because I never trusted autos - old fashioned I guess -
or maybe not! Gary



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

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

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:39:31 -0700
From: William Street
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Re: a question about towing (engines and EPA bashers)

BFunk33 aol.com wrote:I live in Phoenix.

> I know this is unusual, but they were all stupid things by other people;
> One ran a stop sign, two made left turns into me, one was a hit by a Mall
> Security Pickup while my truck was parked (!), one was by a lady distracted....


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.