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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:

trucks in Colorado ["Robert W. Hall"
Re: Rising Temperature... ["Jim" ]
Bodt Seam Filler. [Keith Srb ]
54-F100 Data Plate and Tail Lights [RICHARD_GARBER HP-USA-om21.om.hp.co]
Re: mileage/electronic ignition how [rick adc.com (Rick Larson) ]
Re: mileage/electronic ignition how ["Jim" ]
Re: Rising Temperature... [Ken Payne ]
Re: thanks [Ken Payne ]
Re: trucks in Colorado [Ken Payne ]
Re: trucks in Colorado [Bj2797 aol.com ]
Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge [Raym351 aol.com ]
Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge [Ken Payne ]
Re: Rising Temperature... [Chris North ]
Re: Rising Temperature... ["Jim" ]
Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge ["George Shepherd"
Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge ["George Shepherd"
Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge [William Sabers

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:03:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert W. Hall"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: trucks in Colorado
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I moved from Ann Arbor, Mi (in the rustbelt) to COlorado Springs this week
and have been pleasantly surprised how many nice old Ford (and GM) trucks
there are on the roads around here.. In four days, I've seen a neat orange
'60, a couple early '50s, several early '60s and many nice '67-72's
driving around ...

--Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Hall, Ph.D. Candidate
Software Systems Research Laboratory 3327 EECS Building
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
The University of Michigan Phone: 313-936-0393
Ann Arbor, MI Fax: 313-763-1503
rhall eecs.umich.edu, http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~rhall
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:06:24 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: Rising Temperature...
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My '73 F100 302 was also running hot. When I replaced my
freeze plugs I cleaned out all the crap in the water jacket
and replaced the water pump(you can remove the pump and see
the fins, I had 1 left (more than likely these were equal
culprits in my overheating problem)). I also replaced the
clutch fan with an electric fan. My truck runs just over
the normal mark. on a hot day in bumper to bumper traffic it
will not reach the half way point of normal. You will need
that thermostat again, or it will be a cold winter!
BTW My electric fan is from the junkyard. It was cheap and
I wanted to see what difference it would make. I built it
into the fan shroud and wired it to the ignition. Now that I
know I'm going to keep it I'll install a thermal switch.
I've read pros & cons about hp vs. electric fans, if for no
other reason I'll keep the electric fan so I'll not have to
screw around with the fan, spacer, pulley line it up to the
water pump BS!
Later!

----------
> From: Clark Gustafson
> To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: Rising Temperature...
> Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 3:00 AM
>
> Hello,
> I have a 73 Ford F-100 Custom with a 302, automatic, I was
wondering if
> there was a problem with the truck running hot or what? I
have
> took out the thermostat, replaced the Radiator with a new
one and still it
> seems to be running hot (at the outer edge of the hump in
the "P") I
> wondered if it couldn't be the water pump but I have
talked to two other
> people that say that their 73's run on the hot side too.
Just curious. I
> appreciate
> your input. Thank you very much! Griz.
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________
_______
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP"
to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use:
kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:18:25 -0700
From: Keith Srb
To: "'fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: Bodt Seam Filler.
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Does anyone know what compound Ford used in some of the body seams on my Truck?
One example of the seams I am talking about is the seam between the sheet
metal on the outside of the box and the sheet metal for the corner of the box.
The corner of the box that holds the taillight.

Thanks

>Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
>1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley XLH, Rebuilt from the Frame up! My Harley doesn't leak oil, it
just marks my
parking spot!
>1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
>My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD!"

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 97 17:22:54 -0400
From: RICHARD_GARBER HP-USA-om21.om.hp.com
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: 54-F100 Data Plate and Tail Lights
Message-Id:

Item Subject: Text Item
Hello All,

Hopefully someone can answer my questions. In all the books I've found
list the 54 cost clipper 6 at 115hp at 3900rpm but my data plate lists
it at 102hp at 3400rpm. Any Ideas??
Also it has factory turn signals, two big buttulgy lights mounted on
each front fender. Although I want to keep this truck as stock as
possible these have to go. Was there an option to put these in the
front running lights? The rear lights have been modified, What belongs
back there? I think they are just the plain round ones? Was the lens
plastic or glass?

Rich

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:09:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: mileage/electronic ignition how 2
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve,

You posted some info about FE DuraSpark installations
on the fordtrucks list in the past.

I picked up a 302 one for my '66 289 Mustang and had
a question.

Can I attach the 'red' wire to the coil ignition wire?
Do I need to worry about the ballist resistor?

I'm planning to remove the existing distributor and coil.
Use the distributor, coil, and spark box I pulled from
a 302.

I'd like to connect the 'red' wire under the hood and not
drill a whole through the firewall.

Thanks for any help,
rick
'66 Mustang coupe
'71 F100 daily driver
--
Rick Larson rick adc.com
Minneapolis

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:25:18 -0700
From: "Jim"
To: "Ford Trucks"
Subject: Re: mileage/electronic ignition how 2
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry, not Steve!
I hooked mine to the two wires going to the starter relay,
I mounted the ignition modulator to the wheelwell below and
aft of the battery, this gave me access to the bolts going
in behind the right front wheel. The wire harness comes from
the distributor connects to the coil then down behind the
alternator, connects to the ignition modulator then the red
and white wire follow the other wires to the starter relay.
It turned out to be a clean install, the only holes I had to
drill were for the modulator. It's worked without fault for
a couple of months now. If you'd like I'll take some
polaroids tomorrow, then I can scan them and e-mail them to
you.

Jim Strigas
jstrigas worldnet.att.net

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:02:09 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Rising Temperature...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:00 AM 6/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>I have a 73 Ford F-100 Custom with a 302, automatic, I was wondering if
>there was a problem with the truck running hot or what? I have
>took out the thermostat, replaced the Radiator with a new one and still it
>seems to be running hot (at the outer edge of the hump in the "P") I
>wondered if it couldn't be the water pump but I have talked to two other
>people that say that their 73's run on the hot side too. Just curious. I
>appreciate
>your input. Thank you very much! Griz.
>

Have you considered that the engine is running too lean? Also, I've heard
that taking out the thermostat (as opposed to putting a 160 in) can
actually make they engine hotter since the water flow is so fast it doesn't
get a chance to cool in the radiator. I don't know for sure as the only
heating problems I've had were cured by replacing the thermostats.

What's the coolant/water ratio? Too much coolant reduces the thermal
transfer efficiency of the water. Also, (opening a can of worms here) I've
used the Red Line stuff that is supposed to make the water transfer heat
better. I won't give you a testimonial saying "my engine ran cooler" because
that's the function of the thermostat while driving down the highway. However,
my engine does run slightly cooler when the truck is stuck in stop and go
traffic. I don't know if Red Line would make enough of a difference. How
does everyone else feel about the stuff?

-Ken
1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
List Maintainer, send comments or suggestions to: kpayne mindspring.com
Visit our web site (subscribe/unsubscribe forms are there):
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:06:41 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: thanks
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:36 AM 6/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I want to thank everyone who offered advice on safely starting and
>running my 239 flathead V8 in my 47 One Ton. We were able to start it
>up this past weekend and run it for a while. It is very smooth and seems
>to be in excellent shape. Now the next step.
>
>The radiator hoses became somewhat warm during this short run. Is this
>common ?
>
>Jeff

I've heard numerous stories about flat heads running hot. Class Auto
Restorers magazine also recently stated this but they said its not a problem
if you maintain the engine well.

-Ken
1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
List Maintainer, send comments or suggestions to: kpayne mindspring.com
Visit our web site (subscribe/unsubscribe forms are there):
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:04:50 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: trucks in Colorado
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:03 AM 6/20/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I moved from Ann Arbor, Mi (in the rustbelt) to COlorado Springs this week
>and have been pleasantly surprised how many nice old Ford (and GM) trucks
>there are on the roads around here.. In four days, I've seen a neat orange
>'60, a couple early '50s, several early '60s and many nice '67-72's
>driving around ...
>
>--Rob
>

Its that way in Georgia too. Within a mile there are a couple dozen
fair to nice 50s/60s GMCs/Chevys and Fords. GMCs/Chevys seem to be the
truck of choice around here for 60s models but the late 60s and 50s
are definately Fords.

-Ken
1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
List Maintainer, send comments or suggestions to: kpayne mindspring.com
Visit our web site (subscribe/unsubscribe forms are there):
http://www.ford-trucks.com-Ken

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 10:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bj2797 aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: trucks in Colorado
Message-ID:

THANKS!

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 11:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Raym351 aol.com
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
Message-ID:

My fuel gauge is not reading correctly. Sometimes It will read properly,
other times I get no reading whatsoever even when tanks are full. It makes
no difference even when I flip the switch from front to rear tanks. One
suggestion I got was to change the fuel senders inside the tanks. I find it
odd that both senders would let go the same time. I hate to drop the tanks,
if this is not the problem.

Has anyone else had this problem, and what did you do.

Thanks.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 13:05:43 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:53 AM 6/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>My fuel gauge is not reading correctly. Sometimes It will read properly,
>other times I get no reading whatsoever even when tanks are full. It makes
>no difference even when I flip the switch from front to rear tanks. One
>suggestion I got was to change the fuel senders inside the tanks. I find it
>odd that both senders would let go the same time. I hate to drop the tanks,
>if this is not the problem.
>
>Has anyone else had this problem, and what did you do.
>
>Thanks.

What year/model is it?

Ken

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 12:56:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chris North
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Rising Temperature...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>At 05:00 AM 6/20/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hello,
>>I have a 73 Ford F-100 Custom with a 302, automatic, I was wondering if
>>there was a problem with the truck running hot or what? I have
>>took out the thermostat, replaced the Radiator with a new one and still it



>Have you considered that the engine is running too lean? Also, I've heard
>that taking out the thermostat (as opposed to putting a 160 in) can
>actually make they engine hotter since the water flow is so fast it doesn't
>get a chance to cool in the radiator. I don't know for sure as the only
>heating problems I've had were cured by replacing the thermostats.

I don't want to step on any toes, but I'm sorry, the myth "[removing the
thermostat] can actually make they engine hotter since the water flow is so
fast it doesn't get a chance to cool in the radiator" is a hot button for
me. This is bunk. The radiator is a liquid-gas (with air being the gas)
heat excahnger. The faster either fluid (yes, air is a fluid) flows, the
more efficient the heat excanger becomes. This is because in all fluid
flow, there is a 'boundary layer' of fluid against the walls (of the
radiator) that impedes heat flow. The faster the flow, the thinner the
'boundary layer'; the thinner the 'boundary layer', the better the heat
transfer.

Have you ever heard anyone say that if the air flow through the radiator is
too fast that you will overheat because the air doesn't have a chance to
heat up? (if you get the air going around Mach 3, it will heat things up
due to friction, but that is another story). The truth is that (with
faster flow) each drop of water will loose less heat while it is in the
radiator, but (with faster flow) you have more drops of water going
through, so it balances out. Since you have more efficient heat transfer,
the balance actually swings towards the cool side.

That said, I have had this argument with enough people that have had
personal experience with thermostat removal causing overheating that I
concede that removing the thermostat _can_ make *some engines* overheat,
but not for the 'doesn't get a chance to cool' reason.

In particular, flathead Fords are known for cavitation at the water pump.
(Cavitation is a pheonomena where the water vaporizes due to a high vacuum
at the intake side of the pump. Vaporized water doesn't pump well.) A
thermostat can increase the pressure, preventing caviation.

Also, the high vacuum on the intake side of the water pump can cause the
lower radiator hose to colapse (if it doesn't have a spring inside). A
colapsed hose will not allow much flow. Again, a thermostat reduces the
vacuum.

Finally, I have heard that at higher flow rates, the path the coolant takes
through the engine changes, allowing some areas to not receive adequate
flow. I am not sure that I believe this because I can't visualize how just
increasing the flow could change the path the coolant takes. I will
concede that this might be possible, however, since the water jackets on
engines are typically not designed for efficient flow characteristics.

One other thing to remember, for those who are performance minded, is that
the water pump will pump more water without a thermostat. Water is heavy
(has a lot of mass) and pumping it consumes power. With a thermostat, the
water pump will pump less water and therefore consume less power, providing
more power to the wheels.

>What's the coolant/water ratio? Too much coolant reduces the thermal
>transfer efficiency of the water. Also, (opening a can of worms here) I've
>used the Red Line stuff that is supposed to make the water transfer heat
>better. I won't give you a testimonial saying "my engine ran cooler" because
>that's the function of the thermostat while driving down the highway.
>However,
>my engine does run slightly cooler when the truck is stuck in stop and go
>traffic. I don't know if Red Line would make enough of a difference. How
>does everyone else feel about the stuff?

I was skeptical of this stuff when I first heard of it and I have not used
it, so I have no first hand experience, but I have heard enough about it to
make me believe that it does some good. I don't know if the stuff reduces
the effect of oil contamination coating the iron block (reducing the heat
flow), lowers the viscosity (reducing that 'boundary layer'), or what, but
I have not heard anyone say that it is bogus and I have heard alot of
people say it helps.

Finally, if you have a problem with the engine running hot, switching to a
160 deg thermostat won't help, and here's why. If the coolant is 220 deg,
either a 160 or a 180 will (should) be full open for some time. Obviously,
the cooling system cannot dissapate as much heat as the engine produces, so
the temp rises. No, if the engine is running hot, either you are producing
more heat (by running lean, as Ken mentioned) than the cooling system was
designed for, or your cooling system is not functioning as efficient as it
should. For the latter, flush the system well to make sure it is clean,
rod out (or recore) your radiator, or maybe try the Red Line Water Wetter.


Chris North | I always think I'm right although I know that |
Metallurgist | I must be wrong sometimes, I think. |

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:22:01 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: Rising Temperature...
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Red line (www.redlineoil.com)WaterWetter was tested by 5.0
Mustang (July '97 issue) at Kenne Bell, and was found it did
decrease temp's by 20 degrees on their test Tang.
There's also an article on "Building the ultimate cooling
system", that's good reading on the subject.
Later!

Jim Strigas
jstrigas worldnet.att.net

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:54:50 -0500
From: "George Shepherd"
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You can check out the wiring and switch and guages by removing the sender
wire at the tanks and shorting them to ground. The cab guage should read
full. Open Circuit should read empty. With an ohm meter measure the
resistance of the sending unit to ground when the tank is full and when it
is empty. It should be significently different. Get a junk yard sender or a
new one you can return to check high and low resistance, I haven't looked
in my library to see if anything references the specs, but will if you
like. I'd suspect the switch since both tanks read badly, or it could the
the guage or the voltage regulator (which is mounted on the back side of
the instrument panel) Check the voltage on the + side of the fuel guage, it
should read about 5v and may fluctuate. If it reads 12 v or no volts, its
bad.


----------
> From: Raym351 aol.com
> To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
> Date: Saturday, June 21, 1997 10:53 AM
>
> My fuel gauge is not reading correctly. Sometimes It will read properly,
> other times I get no reading whatsoever even when tanks are full. It
makes
> no difference even when I flip the switch from front to rear tanks. One
> suggestion I got was to change the fuel senders inside the tanks. I find
it
> odd that both senders would let go the same time. I hate to drop the
tanks,
> if this is not the problem.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem, and what did you do.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:58:05 -0500
From: "George Shepherd"
To:
Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ken--Check the Subject line.
Raym351--Don't put important information in the subject line only. No one
looks there.
:-)
Go Shepherd

----------
> From: Ken Payne
> To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Subject: Re: '92 F150 fuel gauge
> Date: Saturday, June 21, 1997 12:05 PM
>
> At 11:53 AM 6/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >My fuel gauge is not reading correctly. Sometimes It will read
properly,
> >other times I get no reading whatsoever even when tanks are full. It
makes
> >no difference even when I flip the switch from front to rear tanks. One
> >suggestion I got was to change the fuel senders inside the tanks. I
find it
> >odd that both senders would let go the same time. I hate to drop the
tanks,
> >if this is not the problem.
> >
> >Has anyone else had this problem, and what did you do.
> >
> >Thanks.
>
> What year/model is it?
>
> Ken
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>

------------------------------....


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.