Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:19:55 -0500 (EST) To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
From: digest-proc lofcom.com
Subject: fordtrucks Digest v97 n0020
Reply-To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Volume 97 Number 0020 fordtrucks Digest

Today's Topics:

Re: 1996 F-150 S/C -Reply
Re: The Vote -Reply -Reply -Reply
A NO Vote
Re: Seatcover info
My Vote
302's
Vote Opinion
Re: 1986 F-150 300cu inline 6
1974 Tach hookup
Re: steering rag joint repair
Ford Truck History Question
1974 tach hookup?
Re: 1986 F-150 300cu inline 6
Re: Vote Opinion
71 F100 engine swap
Re: 71 F100 engine swap
Re: steering rag joint repair
Re: 71 F100 engine swap
Re: 302's
Re: Ford Truck History Question
Re: 71 F100 engine swap
The use of caps
Ford Truck History Question -Reply
RE: Ford Truck History Question
Re: 71 F100 engine swap
9 inch third member
Re: 1974 tach hookup?
Re: 71 F100 engine swap
new member intro
new member intro -Reply
Fordnatics


* PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE DIGEST IN REPLIES TO THE LIST! *

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

>From payne platinum.com Wed Mar 12 17:45:45 1997 From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: 1996 F-150 S/C -Reply
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

You're right. I overlooked the obvious when I sent my reply. My stuff still holds true but its still going to stay a dog until he gets smaller tires or changes the gearing - just a slightly faster dog with the headers.

>>> Steve & Rockette 03/12/97 04:20pm >>> At 04:23 PM 3/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I have a 1996 F-150 Supercab 4x4 with the 5.0L(302) engine with
>a 5 speed manual trans spinning BFG M/Ts (12.50 x 35) on 3.55 limited slip
diff
>

A 35" tall tire, with a 3.55??? And you're wondering why it's a dog until 2700 rpm??? My '57 F100 has a 289 4 speed, 3.70 gears and 255/60/15's,
and it ain't a dog. Basicly you're gears are too high, you should be running 4.11's or 4.56's. Whats the rpm on the highway? 1800??

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox



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



------------------------------
>From payne platinum.com Wed Mar 12 17:45:46 1997 From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: The Vote -Reply -Reply -Reply To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

The voting dealine has been pushed back until Friday at 5:00pm so you have plenty of time. I did this so digest members would know have a chance to vote as the digest can take a day or two to build up before its sent. The vote is whether we should split the list into two lists:
1. 1979 and older
2. 1980 and newer

You can email me privately or use the form on the website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks


>>> "Don G. Buettner" 03/12/97 03:23pm >>> I MISSED THE ISSUE ON WAHT IS BEING VOTED FOR. SINCE YOU ARE COUNTING THE VOTES TO NIGHT I UNFORTUNATELY CANNOT VOTE BUT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT.

THANKS
DON BUETTNER



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



------------------------------
>From glenn.martini airmail.net Wed Mar 12 18:11:10 1997 From: Glenn Martini Subject: A NO Vote
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Guys/Gals -

I own a '97 Expedition 4x4, and I tune into the list in order to keep current on what's happening with late-model trucks, and still keep up with problems/solutions on older trucks.

Just because you don't hear much from "us newer model owners" doesn't mean we're not out here.

As Ford sells more '97's with the modular engine family, I expect that the list will begin to see more questions about performance, safety, and handling concerns.

Keep the list whole.

Thanks!





------------------------------
>From JLINETT SYSUBMC.BMC.COM Wed Mar 12 19:25:50 1997 From: JLINETT SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Subject: Re: Seatcover info

To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

>I AM NOW LOOKING FOR A SEAT COVER FOR MY SPLIT BENCH SEAT
>BUT THIS DOES NOT HAVE THE REMOVEABLE HEADREAT. THE
>HEADREST ARE ACTUALLY A PART OF THE SEAT. IF ANY INFO IS
>AVAILABLE I WOUULD APPRECIATE A NOTE ON THIS.
>
>DON BUETTNER

HI DON! (not so loud!)

I saw some advertised by Cabela's that were manufactured by Saddleman Co., but they did not show the right ones for our '96s. But at Pep Boys I looked at the actual Saddleman catalog, and they do appear to make items for us poor SOBs stuck with fixed headrests.

I'm sorry I don't have an address or phone number, but with the Internet and a little time, or perhaps a ride to the parts store, you should be able to get ahold of their stuff.

Hope this helps,
Jon in Houston


------------------------------
>From FATBOY900 aol.com Wed Mar 12 19:30:28 1997 From: FATBOY900 aol.com
Subject: My Vote
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I like getting information on the newer truck's, and seeing what might fit on my old
truck as well.I vote no split.



Tom Grover
52 - F1 flatheads live


------------------------------
>From yhtlines surfari.net Wed Mar 12 22:28:53 1997 From: yhtlines surfari.net
Subject: 302's
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

RANDY ZEILINGER (USFMDSPR)'s questions about his tall tired 96 4x with a 302 got me to thinking about my 302's (Randy, you gotta go back to stock tires or put lower gears in both ends!).

Since all of us late model guys are probably too inexperienced in maintenance issues (damn EFI 302's run for 300,000 miles I'm told!), we don't contribute to the list, just sit back and smirk, er, lurk! So thought I would stirr some do-do before Ken kicks us 'kids' off the future rust reparations list!

So here's the question that no one on Fordnatics could (or would) answer: how does the 302 in my F150 differ from the 302 in my Mustang--other than the obvious different air intake (twin snorkel or twin MAF's or something) and the speed density FI system still retained on the trucks while all cars went to Mass Air in 87 or 88. So are the block/cam/heads the same as the Mustang 302 thru 94??? Any experts or opinions out there?

Dave Lampert--Arroyo Grande CA
95 F150, 86 GT



------------------------------
>From rmeier connect.net Wed Mar 12 22:38:19 1997 From: rmeier connect.net (Roger Meier)
Subject: Vote Opinion
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I vote no split. I have trucks on both sides of the this wall and although most of my postings are about the older trucks, I pickup (no pun intended) ideas and helpful hints for the newer truck also.
Regards,
Roger Meier



------------------------------
>From Doug_Neely bc.sympatico.ca Thu Mar 13 00:41:22 1997 From: Doug Neely Subject: Re: 1986 F-150 300cu inline 6
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Glen Weisbrod wrote:
>
> Mail*LinkŪ SMTP 1986 F-150 300cu inline 6
>
> Greetings,
> I have an 1986 F-150 1/2 ton, 300 cu inline 6 with single barrel carb, heavy duty suspension, 4 speed manual trans. As mileage increases (165,000km) fuel economy decreases (less than 16mpg). When the vehicle had less that 100,000KM, mileage was around 18 to 20mpg with some trips in the 25mpg range.
> I am wondering what options I can do to the engine to restore and increase fuel economy without losing power or torque. Was thinking high flow air filter and cleaner, non factory plug wires, platinum spark plugs.
> Any other suggestions, or am I stuck with what I got?
> Glen Weisbrod
> glen_weisbrod clifton.ca
> 1986 F-150 1/2 ton
> 1951 Mercury M-1 shortbox
>


Glen,
Pehaps a can of carb clean,new gas filter, check carb mounting nuts, vacuum lines,pcv,etc,is compression still good, or is it starting to fall a bit? Sounds like you're off in the right direction.
Cheers,
Doug

> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com


------------------------------
>From dscreen ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 13 00:52:37 1997 From: "Donald R. Screen" Subject: 1974 Tach hookup
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Nick Finney wrote:


------------------------------
>From Doug_Neely bc.sympatico.ca Thu Mar 13 00:54:40 1997 From: Doug Neely Subject: Re: steering rag joint repair
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Rick Larson wrote:
>
> I noticed my '71 F100 rag joint is shot. The steering is
> very notchy. Has anyone replaced this and is it difficult?
>
> Can I get new rubber/fiber/??? from a local auto parts
> place? Cut a piece out of an old tire :-)?
>
> Can I just ignore it? I'd like to just live with it but
> don't want it to break my steering when I'm driving down the
> freeway to work.
>
> The steering is manual if it matters.
>
> Thanks,
> rick
> '66 Mustang garage shelf
> '71 F100 daily driver
> --
> Rick Larson rick adc.com
> Minneapolis
>

Rick,
I haven't replaced the rag joint, but hows the cab mounts? I had notchy steering and found my drivers side cab mount had given up and split across the front, this put extra pressure on the column bearing at the bottom of the steering shaft and fried it before I got around to having the cab mount welded , something to check if you haven't already.
Cheers,
Doug

> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com


------------------------------
>From dscreen ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 13 01:13:19 1997 From: "Donald R. Screen" Subject: Ford Truck History Question
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I have a 1974 Ford F100 Ranger XLT with a 360 V8.
Can anyone tell me why it has the Ranger designation on it. I kinda thought the Ranger label applied to less than full size trucks. This is definitely a full size truck.
How about the XLT part of the label? I can't hardly find any extras on this truck that would make it a deluxe version. What's the difference between an XLT model and a non-XLT model for 1974?

Don
Allen, Texas


------------------------------
>From dscreen ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 13 01:19:41 1997 From: "Donald R. Screen" Subject: 1974 tach hookup?
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Well my last message apparently got eaten by my mail server..

Nick,
I have breaker point ignition on my 360 V8. I know that the dwell hookup is to the positive terminal on the coil and the black lead goes to ground. How about the tach function of my meter. Does it also go to the positive of the coil or somewhere else? I lost my dwell/tach meter manual years ago and none of my service manuals tell how to hook up the tach function of the meter to a breaker point ignition.

Help!!

Don
Allen, Texas


------------------------------
>From mbaker slate.mines.edu Thu Mar 13 01:43:00 1997 From: Mathew Baker Subject: Re: 1986 F-150 300cu inline 6
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

If you could get around the emissions problems, and the engine is still strong, I would recomend a bigger carburator, and headers for the exaust. This would add horse power, and probably increase gas mileage beacuse the engine would breathe easier (as long as you kept your foot off the gas). Another idea is to tweak your ignition for a hotter spark. Hope I helped.


Mat Baker


------------------------------
>From SubscribeMe TheOffice.Net Thu Mar 13 01:56:36 1997 From: Eddie Torres Subject: Re: Vote Opinion
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I think the list should split. Information has been coming to my box about really old trucks. This is fine. However, my truck is not old and thus just wastes my time. Thank you.

1997 Ford Ranger XLT
|---------------------------------------------------------------| |a.k.a. | |Eddie Torres NetRanger ThePentagon.com | |Need a homepage? I will design and host it! Email me for info| |---------------------------------------------------------------|



------------------------------
>From williame why.net Thu Mar 13 08:50:33 1997 From: william enox
Subject: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I've got a '71 F100 stripper with the 250 six and 3 speed on the column with overdrive. The engine is dead and I'm looking at putting another engine in. The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six out of a later truck with a 4 bbl carb headers and maybe a small cam, or a late 302 with the same treatment. of the two which will give me the most bang? I will be pulling a 6000 lb trailer on rare occasions so I can't put a really big cam in. But most of my driving will be empty on the freeway.




------------------------------
>From rick adc.com Thu Mar 13 09:55:13 1997 From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
Subject: Re: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

William,
>
> I've got a '71 F100 stripper with the 250 six and 3 speed on the column
> with overdrive. The engine is dead and I'm looking at putting another
> engine in. The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six out of a [snip]

There is a lot of room under the hood with a 302. My guess is both will fit it is just a matter how much you want to spend. You might want to get a donor car (or truck) so you get everything you need.

rick
'66 Mustang garage shelf
'71 F100 daily driver (302 powered!)
--
Rick Larson rick adc.com Minneapolis


------------------------------
>From rick adc.com Thu Mar 13 10:05:11 1997 From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
Subject: Re: steering rag joint repair
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Doug,
> Rick,
> I haven't replaced the rag joint, but hows the cab mounts? I
> had notchy steering and found my drivers side cab mount had given
> up and split across the front, this put extra pressure on the
> column bearing at the bottom of the steering shaft and fried it before
> I got around to having the cab mount welded , something to check if you
> haven't already.

I checked the mounts last summer and they "appeared" ok.

I'll check again when the snow stops.

rick
'71 F100 daily driver
--
Rick Larson rick adc.com Minneapolis


------------------------------
>From gypsybill usa.net Thu Mar 13 10:26:59 1997 From: "Bill Rotureau" Subject: Re: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

william enox wrote:

>>I've got a '71 F100 stripper with the 250 six and 3 speed on the
>>column with overdrive. The engine is dead and I'm looking at putting
>>another engine in. The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six >>out of a later truck with a 4 bbl carb headers and maybe a small cam, >>or a late 302 with the same treatment. of the two which will give me >>the most bang? I will be pulling a 6000 lb trailer on rare occasions >>so I can't put a really big cam in. But most of my driving will be >>empty on the freeway.

IHMO I would opt for the V8 - never tried to put a 4bbl on a 300 six although it could be done with some imagination.

If you are looking for pure grunt - go to the big FE blocks like a 390, 429, 460. Have a friend who has a 460/C6 in a 73 F250 and he can pull some real big stumps with it, yet it is mild mannered on the road.

If middle of the road performance is what you are looking for, try a fresh 302/351 with a mild cam, 4bbl, headers. Never tried to pull a 6000lb trailer with my 302/C4 in my '64, but guess it would do it for short hauls. Of course, you would want a tranny cooler, engine cooler, and heavy duty radiator for that kind of pulling (wouldn't hurt for normal driving either).

Well, this is probably more than what you asked, but hope it helps..

Bill

'64 F100 shortbox
(wannabe hotrod)


------------------------------
>From canzus techline.com Thu Mar 13 10:28:15 1997 From: Steve & Rockette Subject: Re: 302's
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

At 10:28 PM 3/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
> RANDY ZEILINGER (USFMDSPR)'s questions about his tall tired 96 4x with a
>302 got me to thinking about my 302's (Randy, you gotta go back to stock
>tires or put lower gears in both ends!).
>

>So here's the question that no one on Fordnatics could (or would) answer:
>how does the 302 in my F150 differ from the 302 in my Mustang--other than
>the obvious different air intake (twin snorkel or twin MAF's or something)
>and the speed density FI system still retained on the trucks while all cars
>went to Mass Air in 87 or 88. So are the block/cam/heads the same as the
>Mustang 302 thru 94??? Any experts or opinions out there?

I seem to remember that the blocks were different, the truck block is heavier in the area of the main web...

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox



------------------------------
>From canzus techline.com Thu Mar 13 10:32:03 1997 From: Steve & Rockette Subject: Re: Ford Truck History Question To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

At 01:13 AM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I have a 1974 Ford F100 Ranger XLT with a 360 V8.

If I recall, its a trim level...?
Can anyone else add anything??

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox



------------------------------
>From canzus techline.com Thu Mar 13 10:37:51 1997 From: Steve & Rockette Subject: Re: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

At 08:50 AM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
> The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six out of a
>later truck with a 4 bbl carb headers and maybe a small cam, or a late
>302 with the same treatment. of the two which will give me the most
>bang?

Personally, I'd go with the 300 in. 4" bore and a 3.98" stroke equals TORQUE. A mild cam with headers & 4bbl really wakes these things up.
Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox



------------------------------
>From DGB0 sigsmtp.sial.com Thu Mar 13 10:44:27 1997 From: "Don G. Buettner" Subject: The use of caps
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I would like to apologize to all for using caps. it has become a habit at work for sending information due to the ease of not having to remember top cap certains letters or sentences.
Will try not to let it happen again.

Thanks,
Don Buettner



------------------------------
>From payne platinum.com Thu Mar 13 11:05:38 1997 From: Ken Payne
Subject: Ford Truck History Question -Reply To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Full size F100s have had the Ranger label as far back as 67, possibly farther back. Its just a special option package as far as I know.

>>> "Donald R. Screen" 03/13/97 12:13am
>>>
I have a 1974 Ford F100 Ranger XLT with a 360 V8.
Can anyone tell me why it has the Ranger designation on it. I kinda thought the Ranger label applied to less than full size trucks. This is definitely a full size truck.
How about the XLT part of the label? I can't hardly find any extras on this truck that would make it a deluxe version. What's the difference between an XLT model and a non-XLT model for 1974?

Don
Allen, Texas


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



------------------------------
>From rcollins micron.net Thu Mar 13 11:28:33 1997 From: Randy Collins Subject: RE: Ford Truck History Question To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

The XLT package is the deluxe version. In those day the deluxe package = didn't include all options like air conditioning. It had comfort and = appeance options like the simulated wood dash and glove box trim = package. I also believe it included cloth seats. (Instead of the = standard vinyl) The control knobs for the heater controls, radio, and = headlights etc. also are a little fancier that the shinny smooth = standard knobs. It also came with carpet > not rubber floor mats. =20

I an not able to tell you what packages contained what options but the = designations I remember are:
Custom
Explorer
XLT

Maybe the custom was the work truck. The explorer was the standard trim = package and the XLT was the loaded version. =20

The ranger designation was the what all trucks were called of the era. = It wasn't until later years that the small trucks received the ranger = designation. =20


Randy Collins
Project Truck:=20
1975 Supercab longbed F250 4WD Hot Rod=3D460 Auto (Randy installed options)



At 01:13 AM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I have a 1974 Ford F100 Ranger XLT with a 360 V8.

If I recall, its a trim level...?
Can anyone else add anything??

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox



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




------------------------------
>From mikes phoenix.net Thu Mar 13 13:19:42 1997 From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

At 08:50 AM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I've got a '71 F100 stripper with the 250 six and 3 speed on the column
>with overdrive. The engine is dead and I'm looking at putting another
>engine in. The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six out of a
>later truck with a 4 bbl carb headers and maybe a small cam, or a late
>302 with the same treatment. of the two which will give me the most
>bang? I will be pulling a 6000 lb trailer on rare occasions so I can't
>put a really big cam in. But most of my driving will be empty on the
>freeway.

I would go with the 300 six. For two reasons: more torque than a 302, and better gas mileage. The torque will come in handy when you do tow that 6000lb trailer. Even with a 4bbl carb with a mild cam you will get better gas mileage than a 302 with the same setup. If/when you go to forced induction, you will definitely surprise some V8 owners.

My $.02,

Mike

'78 F150 302 (15K miles)


_____________________________________________

Email: mikes phoenix.net
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.phoenix.net/~mikes Ford Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.phoenix.net/~mikes/hotlist.htm


------------------------------
>From payne platinum.com Thu Mar 13 14:20:11 1997 From: Ken Payne
Subject: 9 inch third member
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Thanks for all the replies concerning 9 inch third member compatibility. Now I have a new set of questions:

I'm going to pull out the third member ("chunk") this weekend from my truck (67-F100) and rebuild it. What tools and parts do I need and what procedures do I need to follow? Am I getting myself into a mess by taking this on myself?
Shops around here want $650 to rebuild it, way too much. I can get a junkyard chunk for $75 to $100. However, I replaced the entire rear end (some really heavy work for one person) 9 months ago and I don't want yet another ruined rear end another 9 months down the road.

If I do take the option of buying a junker one how do I know if its any good? If that isn't my best option - how hard is rebuilding? I picked up a Chiltons Ford truck book at the library (the really big hard cover) and it has procedures but it keeps saying use special tool xxxyyyzzz to do so and so. Are there tools I can buy to do this - other than Ford (read high $$$$) tools?




------------------------------
>From nfinney earthlink.net Thu Mar 13 14:30:21 1997 From: Nick Finney Subject: Re: 1974 tach hookup?
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Donald R. Screen wrote:

> Nick,
How about the tach function of my meter. Does it also go to
> the positive of the coil or somewhere else? I lost my dwell/tach meter
> manual years ago and none of my service manuals tell how to hook up the
> tach function of the meter to a breaker point ignition.

I just got back home from work. I started at 3:00 AM today (boy I love this job)!
The last time I checked you hooked the tach lead up to the neg terminal on the coil (this one has the wire going to the distributor attached to it). The tach lead is probably green colored. I once worked at a shop restoring c***y's a while back and those JERKS (I wonder if working on GM vehicles has anything to do with this?) cut my chain and took my roll-away with the majority of my tools. So I don't have a dwell/tach.

I am going to sleep.

--
Nick Finney
nfinney earthlink.net

69 F100 390 FE
Formerly:
66 Ford Mustang FASTback 289.

First On Race Day!


------------------------------
>From nfinney earthlink.net Thu Mar 13 14:37:27 1997 From: Nick Finney Subject: Re: 71 F100 engine swap
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Steve & Rockette wrote:
>
> At 08:50 AM 3/13/97 -0500, you wrote:
> > The two otions I'm thinking about are a 300 six out of a
> >later truck with a 4 bbl carb headers and maybe a small cam, or a late
> >302 with the same treatment. of the two which will give me the most
> >bang?
>
> Personally, I'd go with the 300 in. 4" bore and a 3.98" stroke
> equals TORQUE. A mild cam with headers & 4bbl really wakes these
> things up.

Dad owns a 94 F-150 that has the 300 six, It's is a good durable motor-easy to work on. It also has more torque than the 302 for the truck for that year.

--
Nick Finney
nfinney earthlink.net

69 F100 390 FE
Formerly:
66 Ford Mustang FASTback 289.

First On Race Day!


------------------------------
>From jks2x faraday.clas.virginia.edu Thu Mar 13 15:06:28 1997 From: "Jason K. Schechner" Subject: new member intro
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Just thought I'd introduce myself here. I'm Jason Schechner of the Washington, DC area and I've got two 1979 Broncos. Both are Bronco Ranger XLT's one with a 351M and one with a 400. Anyway, just wanted to say hello.

-Jason
admin late model (78-96) Bronco list

--
Jason K. Schechner
Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp


------------------------------
>From payne platinum.com Thu Mar 13 15:54:16 1997 From: Ken Payne
Subject: new member intro -Reply
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Welcome!

>>> "Jason K. Schechner" 03/13/97 02:06pm >>>
Just thought I'd introduce myself here. I'm Jason Schechner of the Washington, DC area and I've got two 1979 Broncos. Both are Bronco Ranger XLT's one with a 351M and one with a 400. Anyway, just wanted to say hello.

-Jason
admin late model (78-96) Bronco list

--
Jason K. Schechner
Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp....


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.