97up-list-digest Wednesday, June 2 1999 Volume 02 : Number 147



=======================================================================
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 - RE: quick question
FTE 97up - Daytime running lights
Re: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners
RE: FTE 97up - quick question
FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?
RE: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?
FTE 97up - 99 Extended Cab seat raiser
RE: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners
Re: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?
Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway
Re: FTE 97up - Off Road Package
Re: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question
RE: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question
Re: FTE 97up - quick question - steering stabilizers
FTE 97up - Turning off engine
FTE 97up - Turning off engine
Re: FTE 97up - Turning off engine
RE: FTE 97up - Turning off engine
RE: FTE 97up - Turning off engine
Re: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question
Re: FTE 97up - Turning off engine
FTE 97up - 250 SD vs. 350 SD for Towing a Gooseneck Trailer
Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway -Reply
FTE 97up - Exhaust Question/Answers
Re: FTE 97up - 250 SD vs. 350 SD for Towing a Gooseneck Trailer
Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway -Reply
RE: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners -Reply
RE: FTE 97up -something about a potato and underwater 4 wheeling (was: Drop-In vs Spray Liners -Reply)
Re: FTE 97up -Potatoes in the tailpipe--or Voice of Experience?
FTE 97up - Priority
RE: FTE 97up - Priority
Re: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:28:13 -0400
From: "Simons, Clayton"
Subject: FTE 97up - RE: quick question

Date:Sat, 29 May 1999 18:43:10 -0600
From:"Daniel M. Richmeier"
>
Subject:Re: FTE 97up - quick question

Dan,
There are two configurations for 4x4 (concerning SD anyway.) One is 4x4,
the other is 4x4 Off Road. The off road package has a few extras added to
it. Like a skid plate to protect the transfer case, one to protect the fuel
tank and the steering stabilizer you keep seeing. Hope that helps.

Clayton
99' F250 SC SWB PSD 4x4

I have a '99 F-250 Super Duty Super Cab 4X4 5.4L. I've noticed that
other similar trucks have a "shock absorber" type thing mounted horizontally
on the front suspension. My truck does not have this part, although the
metal mounting brackets for the part are present.
Should I have this item on my suspension?
Thanks in advance for any input!
Dan in Denver
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:04:28 -0400
From: "Simons, Clayton"
Subject: FTE 97up - Daytime running lights

Hey everyone, seems like I remember a recent post where two different people
installed these lights on their SD pickups. I have a 99' SD SC SWB PSD 4X4
that does not have daytime running lights and would like to install them.
I'm looking for the module that is used for trucks destine to go to Canada
so all that is required is to plug in a module. I can't find that old
posting with the part # so if anyone can or remembers it I would greatly
appreciate it. Thanks

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:03:04 EDT
From: CERESJohnG aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners

Perry,
I have to assume you are doing this in fresh water. Us coasties down in the
lower 48 do all we can to NOT get hardware wet when dropping a boat off in
the great salt pond. It's why they invented tilt trailers and electric
winches. I used to sacrifice trailer wheels, just up to the hubs thank you
in my boating days. Sandbalsting and repainting the back of the trailer was
a yearly mantenance job.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:16:16 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - quick question

These are steering stabilizers. They are used
on solid axle front ends (and twin I beams) to
dampen steering. They are useful when travelling
over rough terrain to help eliminate sudden violent
wheel movement (which translates to your steering wheel).
They also help on pavement if your front end gets
the "shimmies".

The downside is they place extra strain on power
steering pumps, tie rods, and link assemblies.

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: Daniel M. Richmeier[SMTP:dan peaktopeakrealty.com]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 8:43 PM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 97up - quick question
>
> I have a '99 F-250 Super Duty Super Cab 4X4 5.4L. I've noticed that
> other similar trucks have a "shock absorber" type thing mounted
> horizontally on the front suspension. My truck does not have this part,
> although the metal mounting brackets for the part are present.
>
> Should I have this item on my suspension?
>
> Thanks in advance for any input!
>
> Dan in Denver
>
> == 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, 01 Jun 1999 09:22:50 -0400
From: Tom Spangler
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?

I want to get the opinions of anyone out there who has the 5.4. My
truck is a 99 F-150 Sport 4x4 Supercab with the towing package, 5.4 and
3.55 limited slip rear. I get 14mpg all the time, regardless of weather
or driving style, and 13mpg towing. I'm not thrilled with the mileage,
but it's not out of line from what I've heard. The truck seems a bit
sluggish to me considering how much torque it's supposed to have, but
that's a pretty nonscientific analysis, it may be just fine. It just
seems like a couple of 98s I've driven (supposedly 30hp less than my 99)
seem quicker than my truck. Anyway, I think the truck may be running
too rich because my tailpipe is about as black as can be. This would
account for my sluggish performance and subpar(?) mileage. The truck
now has about 7k miles and I always run 89 octane gas. I know if I take
it to the dealer I'll get the standard "they all do that" line, but I
want to find out if they actually do before I talk to them. Thanks in
advance!!!


- --
Tom Spangler - Starter Motor Design - (734)48-49093
Visteon Automotive Systems - Powertrain Control Systems Division
Ford Motorsports Enthusiasts - Newsletter Editor
tspangle visteon.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:36:44 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?

With all the electronic engine management
in these trucks, I don't see any reason why
you should see anything but water from
your tail pipe. I have a 97 with a 5.4L and
do not experience any carbon buildup.
BTW, my truck does not seem to want
for power. I also get 15-16 mpg with, errr,
slightly aggressive driving??


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: Tom Spangler[SMTP:tspangle visteon.com]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:22 AM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?
>
> I want to get the opinions of anyone out there who has the 5.4. My
> truck is a 99 F-150 Sport 4x4 Supercab with the towing package, 5.4 and
> 3.55 limited slip rear. I get 14mpg all the time, regardless of weather
> or driving style, and 13mpg towing. I'm not thrilled with the mileage,
> but it's not out of line from what I've heard. The truck seems a bit
> sluggish to me considering how much torque it's supposed to have, but
> that's a pretty nonscientific analysis, it may be just fine. It just
> seems like a couple of 98s I've driven (supposedly 30hp less than my 99)
> seem quicker than my truck. Anyway, I think the truck may be running
> too rich because my tailpipe is about as black as can be. This would
> account for my sluggish performance and subpar(?) mileage. The truck
> now has about 7k miles and I always run 89 octane gas. I know if I take
> it to the dealer I'll get the standard "they all do that" line, but I
> want to find out if they actually do before I talk to them. Thanks in
> advance!!!
>
>
> --
> Tom Spangler - Starter Motor Design - (734)48-49093
> Visteon Automotive Systems - Powertrain Control Systems Division
> Ford Motorsports Enthusiasts - Newsletter Editor
> tspangle visteon.com
> == 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, 1 Jun 1999 09:43:55 -0400
From: Price CON James
Subject: FTE 97up - 99 Extended Cab seat raiser

I have a 99 XLT supercab. I have installed a Pioneer CD changer underneath
the extended cab seat only using Velcro. The seat is so low that when being
folded down, it hits anything under the seat. I have to pull the changer
out to lower the seat.

I have heard that there is a kit I can buy to raise the seat about 3 inches.
Does anyone know where I can get this kit?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:53:57 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners

You might stay running (due to positive
pressure from your exhaust) but most
likely your breather tube for the rear
end would become submerged. Allowing
water to be introduced into the rear end
gear oil. At any rate, the bed liner would
be the least of my worries if I had that
much of my truck under water.

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: zman[SMTP:jzysek one.net]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 10:36 PM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners
>
> ok
> maybe I am stupid but if you back the truck far enough into the water
> that the bed is "floating" you will have covered your exhaust and won't
> be able to keep it running or get it started again right?
>
>
>
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:00:23 EDT
From: ATUMLAW aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 99 5.4L running rich?

In a message dated 6/1/99 9:24:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tspangle visteon.com writes:


too rich because my tailpipe is about as black as can be. >>

I have a 99 5.4 w/3.73 mine has that too.

VTY

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:55:29 -0500
From: "Charles Abraham"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway

The V-10, didn't it first see life a year earlier than the Super Duty, in Ford's full size vans?
If so, anyone know how well they have fared there?

GEORGE CROLL wrote:

> Just to show my ignorance again. What is the concept of a modular engine. Is it just parts interchangability or is
> there some fundamental difference in the design from previous engines I am not aware of.
>
> As for the V-10 I would think that when designing this engine ford had to consider the application and beef up any
> components which might have been inadequate. Is this true or is it a case of the modular engine design being locked
> into the same basic block design, pistons, rods and crankshaft journal diameter and width to ease manufacturing
> costs. Or are there subtle differences in the 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8 that make the 5.4 or 6.8 better choices for trucks.
>
> As for Alan's comments on a wait and see about the modular design I think they seem valid and bring up some good
> questions which I cant answer but I wish someone who knows would. What I really want to believe is that the V-10
> was engineered to be a heavy duty truck motor and it wil turn out to be a reliable heavy duty motor.
> George Croll
> EPA-OAR-ARD
> (202)564-0162
> == 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, 01 Jun 1999 10:27:34 -0500
From: "Charles Abraham"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Off Road Package

For about $110 (invoice?), the "Off Road" package is really a good deal.
And like you've indicated it's more than just decals and shields. What is
surprising to me is why more people don't get this option with their 4x4?
Protection of the gas tank is worth the price alone.

Charles.

"Simons, Clayton" wrote:

> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:43:10 -0600
> From: "Daniel M. Richmeier"
> >
> Subject: Re: FTE 97up - quick question
>
> Dan,
> There are two configurations for 4x4 (concerning SD anyway.) One is 4x4,
> the other is 4x4 Off Road. The off road package has a few extras added to
> it. Like a skid plate to protect the transfer case, one to protect the fuel
> tank and the steering stabilizer you keep seeing. Hope that helps.
>
> Clayton
> 99' F250 SC SWB PSD 4x4
>
> I have a '99 F-250 Super Duty Super Cab 4X4 5.4L. I've noticed that
> other similar trucks have a "shock absorber" type thing mounted horizontally
> on the front suspension. My truck does not have this part, although the
> metal mounting brackets for the part are present.
> Should I have this item on my suspension?
> Thanks in advance for any input!
> Dan in Denver
> == 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, 1 Jun 1999 09:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Privratsky
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question

I put a Flowmaster and K&N on my old Nissan 3.8L and
was pleased immensly with the sound and performance
improvements. I would think it should be the same or
better on your engine.

- --- Larry Drum wrote:
> Howdy Y'all,
>
> I have a '99 with the 4.2 & 5spd. I am looking for
> a "Meatier" sound from
> the exhaust. I realize that it is only a V6 and
> will never sound like a V8.
> I have also heard that the Flowmaster Muffler's work
> great and produce
> awesome sound. I am not really looking for a
> "Cat-Back" system, the Bends
> on the existing pipes are close enough to Mandrel
> Bends. My questions are:
> Is the flowmaster a good choice? And if not, any
> recommendations for
> another brand? And those of you who have the Flow's
> on the 4.2, Your
> thoughts/Impressions?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Larry Drum
> Captain, CHP Explorer Post #834
> Needles Area
> Webmaster - www.chpexplorer.org
>
> '99 F-150 XL, Bright Red, 2WD, 4.2 V-6, 5 Spd. 3.55
> LS, BugFlector II, Vent
> Visors, Rhino Lining Bed Liner. Maxon 40 Channel
> W/10 Channel Weather CB.
> Maxon "Through the Glass" CB Antenna (Awesome
> Performance) W/Weather Band.
> (Lowering Kit Coming Soon :o).
>
> Sound System :o) -
>
> Alpine In Dish 6 Disk Changer/Receiver Head Unit
> (Alpine Model # MDA-W890).
> 4 Infinity Kappa Series 5 X 7 Door and Rear Panel
> Speakers. 2 Cerwin Vega
> Stealth Series 12" Sub Woofers in a Custom Enclosure
> Behind the Seat
> (Regular Cab). 1 - Sherwood 250 Watt x 4 Channel
> Amplifier Bridged to 500
> Watts X 2 Channels Pushing the Subs, 1 - Pioneer 75
> Watt X 4 Channel
> Amplifier Pushing the Infinitiy's. All Cable and
> Wiring by Monster Cable.
> Power Distribution Blocks by Monster Cable.
>
>
> == 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: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:14:55 -0500
From: "Chris Patrick"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question

a "turbo style" generic (about $30) or a LONGER glas pack or two (about $49
each) will change your sound, cheaply.
performance will not change significantly. these cheaper units usually last
2-3 years....

or you can go with a "brand name" kit from someone.... will be better
quality, but not very different in sound/performance.

i mention the longer glaspacks, because the shorter/louder units always
remind me of some kid who got his first car,
and hacked the exaust off to make it louder. the longer units will
rumble/growl at low to mid rpms, and only get sharp at high rpms.


> I put a Flowmaster and K&N on my old Nissan 3.8L and
> was pleased immensly with the sound and performance
> improvements. I would think it should be the same or
> better on your engine.

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:35:02 -0600
From: Alan Bowes
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - quick question - steering stabilizers

Actually, a good steering stabilizer (aka steering shock absorber) should not
put much strain on the steering pump or gearbox. This is because a steering
stabilizer is velocity sensitive, meaning that it puts up very little
resistance to the relatively slow movements (slow acceleration/deceleration)
of steering components that are characteristic of "normal" steering
situations, but it puts up many times more resistance to the sudden movements
that are characteristic of hitting bumps or ruts in a road.

And, because of the damping characteristics of the shock absorber, it should
actually help reduce the shock load on MOST of the steering components and
make them last longer. Basically, you have a series of metal-to-metal (except
for the lubricating film) contacts all the way from the wheel to the steering
gearbox components (unless you happen to have some plastic-lined ball joints).
Any shock/movement from a tire hitting a bump is transmitted through this
series of contacts. While there is some natural damping action due to such
things as the flexing of components, the grease/oil film on the mating
surfaces, inertial changes, and some sliding/rolling at contact points (such
as the recirculating balls in the gearbox), a significant portion of a shock
wave and movement from hitting a bump eventually ends up against a steering
gearbox component and a portion of that is transmitted to the steering wheel.
The steering shock absorber reduces the upstream shock transmission/movement
and rebound.

You may see some increase in certain initial forces on the tie rod ends when
using a steering stabilizer, but on the other hand, the steering stabilizer
should reduce what might be termed the "rebound" or "sudden stop" load on the
tie rod ends caused by a relatively sudden stop upstream of the tie rod.

By the way, I think that these units can be made slightly more effective for
damping smaller movements by using polyurethane bushings instead of softer
materials. Gas-charged units should also help improve damping characteristics,
due, I think, to reducing cavitation caused by very sudden movements.

Different stabilizers will have different velocity-related damping
characteristics, depending on the brand, model, and the vehicle it is designed
for. You may have to do some experimenting (or research) to find out which
would be best for your intended use of the vehicle.

Note: I'm not an automotive engineer, so all of this is only a
"non-professional" opinion, but I personally think that a steering stabilizer
is a VERY good idea.

Alan



"D'Amelio, Stephen M." wrote:

> These are steering stabilizers. They are used
> on solid axle front ends (and twin I beams) to
> dampen steering. They are useful when travelling
> over rough terrain to help eliminate sudden violent
> wheel movement (which translates to your steering wheel).
> They also help on pavement if your front end gets
> the "shimmies".
>
> The downside is they place extra strain on power
> steering pumps, tie rods, and link assemblies.
>
> 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: Daniel M. Richmeier[SMTP:dan peaktopeakrealty.com]
> > Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 1999 8:43 PM
> > To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: Re: FTE 97up - quick question
> >
> > I have a '99 F-250 Super Duty Super Cab 4X4 5.4L. I've noticed that
> > other similar trucks have a "shock absorber" type thing mounted
> > horizontally on the front suspension. My truck does not have this part,
> > although the metal mounting brackets for the part are present.
> >
> > Should I have this item on my suspension?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any input!
> >
> > Dan in Denver

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: ashok bala
Subject: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little while before
shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??

thanks..
99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: ashok bala
Subject: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little while before
shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??

thanks..
99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:34:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Douglas R. Floyd"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

>
>
> Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little while before
> shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??
>
> thanks..
> 99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)

Most vehicles, it is a good idea to do that -- about 30 seconds to a minute,
AFAIK.

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


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:51:25 -0500
From: "Chris Patrick"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

INTERESTING.

in my manuals for my '84 Buick Grand National, My GN-X, and my GMC Typhoon
they took a whole page warning that FAILURE to do so would cause significant
damage
to the vehicle, and would void your warranty.
My '86 SVO mustang had no such warning.. but i bought it used with 120k+
miles on it
and its possible i didnt get the full manual with the Car.

Doesnt Ford make a big point of the mandatory cool down period in the
manual,
or is this not required on the SD's... its been 8 years since ive owned a
turbocharged vehicle
and they were GM products...

just curious...


> >
> > Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little
> while before
> > shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??
> >
> > thanks..
> > 99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)
>
> Most vehicles, it is a good idea to do that -- about 30
> seconds to a minute,
> AFAIK.
>
> > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> >
>
>
> --
> Douglas R. Floyd
> |
> | Quote coming soon.
> Disclaimer: |
> I speak for myself, not my employer.
> == 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, 1 Jun 1999 15:02:48 -0400
From: "D'Amelio, Stephen M."
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

I think it depends on what oil the turbo
uses for lubrication. Some use the engine oil
while others use a separate source. I imagine
some are cooled better than others too.
The idea of idling the engine for a short time
is to cool the turbo bearings by running relatively
cool oil through it while it is at low rpm's.

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: Chris Patrick[SMTP:chris jbtech.com]
> Reply To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 2:51 PM
> To: 97up-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Turning off engine
> Importance: High
>
> INTERESTING.
>
> in my manuals for my '84 Buick Grand National, My GN-X, and my GMC Typhoon
> they took a whole page warning that FAILURE to do so would cause
> significant
> damage
> to the vehicle, and would void your warranty.
> My '86 SVO mustang had no such warning.. but i bought it used with 120k+
> miles on it
> and its possible i didnt get the full manual with the Car.
>
> Doesnt Ford make a big point of the mandatory cool down period in the
> manual,
> or is this not required on the SD's... its been 8 years since ive owned a
> turbocharged vehicle
> and they were GM products...
>
> just curious...
>
>
> > >
> > > Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little
> > while before
> > > shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??
> > >
> > > thanks..
> > > 99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)
> >
> > Most vehicles, it is a good idea to do that -- about 30
> > seconds to a minute,
> > AFAIK.
> >
> > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas R. Floyd
> > |
> > | Quote coming soon.
> > Disclaimer: |
> > I speak for myself, not my employer.
> > == 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, 1 Jun 1999 12:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Gaudenti
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 4.2 Exhaust Question

I've got the 42551 Flowmaster with a turn-down on my 4.2L, I think it
sounds pretty good. As you say, it doesn't sound like a V8, but good. I
took a friend from work for a ride and he thought it sounded good. I
didn't put it on for sound, though, I wanted to let the engine breathe a
bit better. And it did make a difference in performance. I'm also
getting about 1 to 1.5 MPG better mileage.

Danny
'98 F-150 Std., RC, SB, 4x2, 4.2l, 5-sp, 3.08, AC, speed control, rear
slider with Edelbrock shocks, 50 Series Flowmaster, K&N with airbox mod,
electric radiator fan


> Howdy Y'all,
>
> I have a '99 with the 4.2 & 5spd. I am looking for a "Meatier" sound from
> the exhaust. I realize that it is only a V6 and will never sound like a V8.
> I have also heard that the Flowmaster Muffler's work great and produce
> awesome sound. I am not really looking for a "Cat-Back" system, the Bends
> on the existing pipes are close enough to Mandrel Bends. My questions are:
> Is the flowmaster a good choice? And if not, any recommendations for
> another brand? And those of you who have the Flow's on the 4.2, Your
> thoughts/Impressions?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry Drum

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:27:13 -0700
From: johny
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - Turning off engine

The PowerStroke supplemental manual *does* recommend idling
especially after towing heavy loads. They don't seem to make such
a big deal in unloaded situations.

If you are hauling at full GVW or GCW, then by the time you pull off the
highway and come to a stop, I'd wait a 2-3 minutes to get you down to
300 F (measured after turbo). Total time from backing off the throttle to
stopping could be in the vicinity of 5 - 10 minutes.

Unloaded (and in flat territory), doing the same trick, 30 seconds is usually
more than enough.

I personally use the 300F rule of thumb as measured after turbo.
(I have a pyrometer).

There are some folks that may disregard this, but it's not clear they
keep the vehicals long enough to notice any ill effects.

There was an interesting thread in the 99 forums labeled "turbo cool down"
on http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford -diesel. com/ that was discussing this very subject.

.

Chris Patrick wrote:

> INTERESTING.
>
> in my manuals for my '84 Buick Grand National, My GN-X, and my GMC Typhoon
> they took a whole page warning that FAILURE to do so would cause significant
> damage
> to the vehicle, and would void your warranty.
> My '86 SVO mustang had no such warning.. but i bought it used with 120k+
> miles on it
> and its possible i didnt get the full manual with the Car.
>
> Doesnt Ford make a big point of the mandatory cool down period in the
> manual,
> or is this not required on the SD's... its been 8 years since ive owned a
> turbocharged vehicle
> and they were GM products...
>
> just curious...
>
> > >
> > > Is there a need to leave the engine running for a little
> > while before
> > > shutting off in order to let the turbo cool down??
> > >
> > > thanks..
> > > 99 F350 Lariat DRW (diesel)
> >
> > Most vehicles, it is a good idea to do that -- about 30
> > seconds to a minute,
> > AFAIK.
> >
> > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas R. Floyd
> > |
> > | Quote coming soon.
> > Disclaimer: |
> > I speak for myself, not my employer.
> > == 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, 1 Jun 1999 15:49:33 -0400
From: "Brett T. Vincent"
Subject: FTE 97up - 250 SD vs. 350 SD for Towing a Gooseneck Trailer

My wife and I will be ordering a new Super Duty in the next month or so. We
originally planned on a 250 SD, CC, LWB, PSD (probably), auto. We
eventually will get a 4 or 6 horse gooseneck trailer. Is a 250 SD
sufficient for the weight of a 10,000 to 12,000# trailer? I read somewhere
that the tongue weight of a gooseneck/5th wheel trailer should be about 25%
of the total weight. For a 12,000# trailer, that means 3,000# tongue
weight, leaving about 200# for passengers with the 250. Am I on the right
track? Thanks.

Brett T. Vincent
Brett.T.Vincent.1 gsfc.nasa.gov



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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:41:18 -0400
From: GEORGE CROLL
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway -Reply

Interesting note on V-10.

Talked with a guy who has a V-10 in a 97 motorhome with 35K on it now. He had some interesting coments. first he
said he thought the ford V-10 in his coachman motorhome was far better than the 454 chevy he had in his previous
Pace Arrow motorhome in both real pulling power and in gas mileage. He claimed 8 to 9 mpg on the 35 ft coachman
vs 6 to 7 on the Pace Arrow. His second statement was something to the effect that at 3800 to 4200 rpm the V-10
could pull a certain steep grade near his home in second gear without bogging down when the old 454 would bog
down and always end up in first on the same hill. No gear ratio info on either vehicle or tranny info on the Pace
Arrow. thought I would add just another anecdotal review of the V-10 to the list.

George Croll
EPA-OAR-ARD
(202)564-0162
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:09:57 -0700
From: "Larry Drum"
Subject: FTE 97up - Exhaust Question/Answers

Hey Again,

I just want to thank those of you who responded to my Question about the 4.2
Exhaust. After reading here and doing some research of my own, I will
definitely go with the Flowmaster..

Thanks Again!

Larry Drum
Captain, CHP Explorer Post #834
Needles Area
Webmaster - www.chpexplorer.org

'99 F-150 XL, Bright Red, 2WD, 4.2 V-6, 5 Spd. 3.55 LS, BugFlector II, Vent
Visors, Rhino Lining Bed Liner. Maxon 40 Channel W/10 Channel Weather CB.
Maxon "Through the Glass" CB Antenna (Awesome Performance) W/Weather Band.
(Lowering Kit Coming Soon :o).

Sound System :o) -

Alpine In Dish 6 Disk Changer/Receiver Head Unit (Alpine Model # MDA-W890).
4 Infinity Kappa Series 5 X 7 Door and Rear Panel Speakers. 2 Cerwin Vega
Stealth Series 12" Sub Woofers in a Custom Enclosure Behind the Seat
(Regular Cab). 1 - Sherwood 250 Watt x 4 Channel Amplifier Bridged to 500
Watts X 2 Channels Pushing the Subs, 1 - Pioneer 75 Watt X 4 Channel
Amplifier Pushing the Infinitiy's. All Cable and Wiring by Monster Cable.
Power Distribution Blocks by Monster Cable.


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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:13:44 -0400
From: Bill
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - 250 SD vs. 350 SD for Towing a Gooseneck Trailer

I am pulling close to 10k# 5th wheel with 1950# on the pin
and the 1950# is border line, depending on the road I get a
little more bounce than I like at times. So I would say with
3k pin your minimum would be an F-350 dually. Best to talk
to others pulling a live load of that weight range vs my
fixed weight load.

"Brett T. Vincent" wrote:
>
> My wife and I will be ordering a new Super Duty in the next month or so. We
> originally planned on a 250 SD, CC, LWB, PSD (probably), auto. We
> eventually will get a 4 or 6 horse gooseneck trailer. Is a 250 SD
> sufficient for the weight of a 10,000 to 12,000# trailer? I read somewhere
> that the tongue weight of a gooseneck/5th wheel trailer should be about 25%
> of the total weight. For a 12,000# trailer, that means 3,000# tongue
> weight, leaving about 200# for passengers with the 250. Am I on the right
> track? Thanks.
>
> Brett T. Vincent
> Brett.T.Vincent.1 gsfc.nasa.gov
>
> == 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, 01 Jun 1999 16:24:50 -0400
From: Bill
Subject: Re: FTE 97up - So what is a modular engine anyway -Reply

FYI: I'm pulling a 5th wheel thats near 10,000# with a V10
and 4.30, on mostly level roads and short grades it will
pull in overdrive at 60 to 65 mph and its rare for it to
downshift. On long hills and steep short grades I downshift
and it holds that gear and maintains the speed. I have not
had the chance to drive on any long steep grades. Mileage
pulling stays very close to 9.4 mpg, around town empty about
11 and on the highway empty its gets around 15.5. It now
has 2000 miles on it.

GEORGE CROLL wrote:
>
> Interesting note on V-10.
>
> Talked with a guy who has a V-10 in a 97 motorhome with 35K on it now. He had some interesting coments. first he
> said he thought the ford V-10 in his coachman motorhome was far better than the 454 chevy he had in his previous
> Pace Arrow motorhome in both real pulling power and in gas mileage. He claimed 8 to 9 mpg on the 35 ft coachman
> vs 6 to 7 on the Pace Arrow. His second statement was something to the effect that at 3800 to 4200 rpm the V-10
> could pull a certain steep grade near his home in second gear without bogging down when the old 454 would bog
> down and always end up in first on the same hill. No gear ratio info on either vehicle or tranny info on the Pace
> Arrow. thought I would add just another anecdotal review of the V-10 to the list.
>
> George Croll
> EPA-OAR-ARD
> (202)564-0162
> == 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, 01 Jun 1999 11:19:13 -0400
From: GEORGE CROLL
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Drop-In vs Spray Liners -Reply

Having done a fair amount of four wheeling I agree that you need to check and change your rear differential fluid
often when the rear end sits in water over the top of the diferential. Remember that the gear oil will float on top of
the water so just checking your rear end through the fill hole is not going to tell you if water is in your differential. Its
best to drive around the block a few times before you check the oil and if it gets that white foamy look change it.
Also do not forget your wheel bearings which dont fare any better when they get wet a lot.

also I have never stalled and not been able to start my old jeep even when the tailpipe is a foot or more under water.
The real enemy is getting your ignition wet, sucking water into your intake or having water back all the way into your
cylinders through the exhaust if the engine stalls. From a practical standpoint my guess is that your tailpipe would
have to be 5 to 10 ft under the water to get enough backpressure to affect an engine seriously. A short hose will
demonstrate easily. Blow through the hose at 1 ft under the water and then try again at 5 ft and again at 10 ft. You
have a great set of lungs to blow bubbles at 10 ft would be my guess. Remember the gases in a piston are at 8 to
10 times the pressure of the atmosphere when the exhaust valve opens. This much pressure easily avercomes the
slight backpressure increase in 1 to 3 ft of water. From an engineering standpoint I think I remember that you have to
be about 32 ft deep in water just to get to two atmospheres pressure.

As a side note I tried the old potato in the tailpipe trick on a high school buddy years ago. The idea is that the potato
will back up the engine and stall the car and the owner will not be alble to figure out why. Well it did'nt work, he just
cranked it over until the potato shot out of the exhaust. the moral of the story is that a big engine is a pretty good
compressor when the exhaust is plugged.
George Croll
EPA-OAR-ARD
(202)564-0162
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:08:22 -0500
From: "Chris Patrick"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up -something about a potato and underwater 4 wheeling (was: Drop-In vs Spray Liners -Reply)

im guilty as well of it, but please try to keep the thread topics applicable
to the subject material..
the following, while very interesting, has nothing to do with bedliners.



> Having done a fair amount of four wheeling I agree that you
> need to check and change your rear differential fluid
> often when the rear end sits in water over the top of the
> diferential. Remember that the gear oil will float on top of
> the water so just checking your rear end through the fill
> hole is not going to tell you if water is in your differential. Its
> best to drive around the block a few times before you check
> the oil and if it gets that white foamy look change it.
> Also do not forget your wheel bearings which dont fare any
> better when they get wet a lot.

also, if your rear end gets submerged, on some vehicles chances are your
xfer case vents and tranny vents are also sucking in water.. so check them
regularly...


> As a side note I tried the old potato in the tailpipe trick
> on a high school buddy years ago. The idea is that the potato
> will back up the engine and stall the car and the owner will
> not be alble to figure out why.

you have to use multiple potatos. this DOES work on some cars, although i
thing the diameter of the exaust pipe will affect it as well. I can tell you
FOR A FACT that 4+ good sized potatos will cause a '84 buick skyhawk 4
banger (2.0 litre i think) to fail to start. I can also tell you that if
the pressure gets too great in the pipe, it will backflow into the cylinder
through the exaust port, which will damage the head, and "can" cause a blown
head gasket/bent valves, etc, should the driver not be aware and continue to
crank the engine.

I can also tell you that should you do this to a teachers car, and they find
out who did it, it could lead to a suspension from high school.

it would be difficult to block a 3" or greater pipe, with food.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:05:54 -0500
From: "C. K. Hartline"
Subject: Re: FTE 97up -Potatoes in the tailpipe--or Voice of Experience?

Hmmm...Chris this leads me to believe that you might have been a bit
mishevious as a younger man, not that you would hold to those same ornery
standards today, would you? At least you did it to a GM product...
One would assume you would never do that to a Ford Truck!

C.K.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:59:19 -0700
From: "iflyrc"
Subject: FTE 97up - Priority

Who is Chris Patrick and why are his post always a priority?


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:28:59 -0700
From: "Larry Drum"
Subject: RE: FTE 97up - Priority

He is Chris Patrick and his messages are priority because he has the
"Priority" button pushed in his mail program.


- -----Original Message-----
From:owner-97up-list....

---

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.