To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

hatherill wrote:
>
> I have a 1995 F150 4x4 and have went through 3 sets of front pads and
> 2 rotors,and am on the third set of calipers.I have heard of others with
> same problem, dealers can't seem to find the problem.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________ I had this same problem on my 86 F150. It would go through brake pads in about 7,000 miles and make a mess of the aluminium wheels in the process. Everyone I talked to knew of the problem but didn't know of a solution. I replaced everything, pads, rotors, calipers, hoses, and master cylinder. No help, it did the same thing. A friend of mine own an auto parts store and he said they sell a ton of pads for F150s. He recomended EIS Extender pads, said they lasted longer. I tried them and got about 15,000 miles on a set. I started looking for other problems and came up with a theroy for the Ford brake problem. It's simple; a master cylynder that's to full. When our trucks are state inspected in Missouri the fluid level must be within a quarter inch of the top of the master cylinder. With normal wear of the pads the fluid level will go down. Our inspectors will nomally top the master cylinder off to the brim. When they do this the fluid has no place to expand when it gets hot. The only thing it can do is put pressure on the piston in the caliper. This is like riding with your foot on the brake all the time, which in turn gets the fluid hotter. I keep the fluid in my master cylinder about a 1/2" below the top. By doing this and using the extender pads I have over 30.000 miles on my present set of pads. They look to be about half worn. I don't know if this is the problem with all the trucks but it seemed to cure my problem. It's cheap enough to try.
I hope this helps.

Mark

86 F150 S.C. 460
280,000 miles and its still going (and stopping)


------------------------------
>From bigric mail.utexas.edu Mon Apr 7 20:12:00 1997 From: bigric mail.utexas.edu (Richard Cherico) Subject: Re: Concerns with F350 Brakes - Reply To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com


>I remember reading somewhere that you have to use a special
>caliper grease(it helps the caliper slide back better) when you

On the angled piece of metal that the caliper slides on (the one you remove to remove the caliper-I can't remember the name) it's a good idea to clean it off and put some anti-sieze lube or something else on it to keep it greased. Don't know how much it helps in terms of heat buildup due to stuck calipers, but it never hurts.
bigric mail.utexas.edu
'68 Ford F100 Custom Cab Stepside 360 FE '66 VW Beetle 1300->1500
bigric mail.utexas.edu
'68 Ford F100 Custom Cab Stepside 360 FE '66 VW Beetle 1300->1500



------------------------------
>From randyz ameritech.net Mon Apr 7 20:27:10 1997 From: Randy Zeilinger Subject: Re: F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

hatherill wrote:
>
> I have a 1995 F150 4x4 and have went through 3 sets of front pads and
> 2 rotors,and am on the third set of calipers.I have heard of others with
> same problem, dealers can't seem to find the problem.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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

Do you happen to live anywhere near Detroit? The brake engineers are working on something and they want to evaluate 1995/96 F-150 brake systems.

>From what they tell me, they need the truck overnight and will put 200-300 miles on it. in return, the truck owner will get all new brakes and rotors and drums.

Even tho' I only have 12,000 miles on mine I'll let them have it. I want to see what those 35's are doing to the system.

E-mail if you want to participate.

Randy Z.
1996 F-150 S/C 4x4 5.0 l 5spd


------------------------------
>From silent.bob juno.com Mon Apr 7 21:17:57 1997 From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Quicker 97-Ranger XLT (2.3L) -Reply To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:32:49 -0400 (EDT) PAYNK (Ken Payne) writes:
>-snip-
>>Ill have more on it as i develop my web site with pictures of what
>i've
>>done to the truck and what i plan to do and i plan to make it kind of
>a
>>information trade site for Ranger Owners. Its still under major
>>construction, but i have posted some of the frame work to the site,
>there
>>will be much more, once i get around to scanning my photos and start
>>posting information, any ideas, or if you would like to add on to the
>>site, is welcome.
>
>>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.icelair.com/ranger
>
>Would you like a link on the Ford Trucks List web site to yours?


Sure. And ill do the same for you.

Robert Inman
Houston, Texas

95 Ranger Supercab 2.3L


------------------------------
>From ROBBCWZ aol.com Mon Apr 7 22:47:58 1997 From: ROBBCWZ aol.com
Subject: Delete me from the list
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Delete me from the list, its information I don't want Thank you


------------------------------
>From dlove iwaynet.net Mon Apr 7 23:36:56 1997 From: "David S. Love" Subject: SAFETY WARNING
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

A popular four wheel drive magazine published a suggestion for siphoning fuel from your vehicle. Without going into unnecessary detail, the article involved using a shop vacuum to create the negative pressure required to start the flow of liquid. However, in using this procedure, fuel vapor will pass directly over the vacuum's motor. Many shop vacuums, including my own, utilize a motor with an exposed stator. Obviously the result could be disastrous. My owner's manual specifically states the vacuum is not to be used in the vicinity of explosive materials. Please convey this information to as many people as possible.

Later!

Dave Love



------------------------------
>From kpayne mindspring.com Tue Apr 8 00:01:40 1997 From: Ken Payne Subject: Re: SAFETY WARNING
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

At 11:36 PM 4/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>A popular four wheel drive magazine published a suggestion for siphoning
>fuel from your vehicle. Without going into unnecessary detail, the article
>involved using a shop vacuum to create the negative pressure required to
>start the flow of liquid. However, in using this procedure, fuel vapor will
>pass directly over the vacuum's motor. Many shop vacuums, including my own,
>utilize a motor with an exposed stator. Obviously the result could be
>disastrous. My owner's manual specifically states the vacuum is not to be
>used in the vicinity of explosive materials. Please convey this information
>to as many people as possible.
>
>Later!
>
>Dave Love
>

Obviously the guy who wrote the article has been siphoning gas with a garden hose for too many years... seems that the brain cell count has dropped.

-Ken Payne
1967 Ford F100 Custom Cab, 390 FE V8
List maintainer, send me comments and suggestions.
Visit the Ford Trucks List Web Page (unsubscribe form is there): http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks



------------------------------
>From MLawing616 aol.com Tue Apr 8 00:11:27 1997 From: MLawing616 aol.com
Subject: very high miles 302 v8
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I own a 91E250 with 250133 miles and want to share some info with you. This van was used as a delivery vehicle for a Kenworth Truck Dealer In North Carolina and was driven 1200 miles per wk for almost four(4) years, the miles were 90% highway speed limit or above. I purchased the van 2 years ago when it had 230,788 miles. I had worked for this KW dealer for many years and knew everything about this van pertaining to service records and expenses. The van had not had but 2 sets of spark plugs and the valve covers had never been removed,nor had the oil pan. I now have driven the van 19345 miles and have not had to to any repairs up until now. This V8 engine (302fuel injection) still does not burn any oil,has 40+ lbs oil pressure hot and runs like new.
How can you explain such outstanding service with an engine showing no sign of giving up,can i expect 300,000+++ miles.wow, oh,by the way,it has always had Castrol gt 10w40 oil every 3000 miles since brand new and always a new oil filter every time,also air cleaner and PCV every 10,000 since new>


------------------------------
>From Doug_Neely bc.sympatico.ca Tue Apr 8 00:18:52 1997 From: Doug Neely Subject: 289 revisited
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Garry,
After much scraping of sludge, lo and behold, some numbers appeared below no. 4 cyl. C5AE-6015 4M3 . Am I right in assuming this is a 65 cast in 3 DEC 64 ? If so this is a weird bird cause the early 289s were 5 bolt bellhousings and this one is 6 from what I've read they didn't change to 6 bolt pattern till mid year in 65.
Cheers,
Doug


------------------------------
>From rcollins micron.net Tue Apr 8 00:22:42 1997 From: Randy Collins Subject: RE: SAFETY WARNING
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Wow!

That ALMOST unbelievable.

Sounds like the publisher had a case of the HUA syndrome. HUA = Head Up A*S

Randy Collins
Project Ford, mostly in parts, Almost finished with the disassemble phase soon to move to the assemble phase!

----------
From: David S. Love[SMTP:dlove iwaynet.net] Sent: Monday, April 07, 1997 4:37 PM
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: SAFETY WARNING

A popular four wheel drive magazine published a suggestion for siphoning fuel from your vehicle. Without going into unnecessary detail, the article involved using a shop vacuum to create the negative pressure required to start the flow of liquid. However, in using this procedure, fuel vapor will pass directly over the vacuum's motor. Many shop vacuums, including my own, utilize a motor with an exposed stator. Obviously the result could be disastrous. My owner's manual specifically states the vacuum is not to be used in the vicinity of explosive materials. Please convey this information to as many people as possible.

Later!

Dave Love



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




------------------------------
>From tonkatoy capecod.net Tue Apr 8 02:11:44 1997 From: dreeder
Subject: 64 F100 SWB
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

This is to my truck
1964 F100 short wide bed (picture coming)candy apple red ext. black & white int.
engine 1969 429 thunder jet (478ci now) 9.5 comp/edelbrock perf rpm/750 holley/isky 264 mega cam/ crane 3000- ignition/electric fan-4 row rad trans 1973 lincoln c-6 (kevlar band&clutches +other beef) diff nodular 9 inch 3.73-1 gears/ BF Goodrich 295/50/15

I'm trying to decide which car to harvest the new front suspension from.
My gear head buddies can't agree. I think I've almost decided on a Z-28 for both front and rear making wheel selection better. Has any one heard of a better choice i.e.lincoln 69-73 thus keeping it all Ford and making the 429 fit nicer. Comments are welcome.
This is one wild ride as it is.It is a good daily driver able to deliver a healthy dose of whiplash when called upon. I really enjoy reading the mail and thanks again. TONKA


------------------------------
>From jstrigas worldnet.att.net Tue Apr 8 03:02:26 1997 From: "Jim" Subject: Re: SAFETY WARNING
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Sorry to disagree! This is perfectly safe if first you take a "Bic Lighter" and look in the gas tank. To be sure of the fuel level, you must get real close! I would like to see Posts from people who try this technique. It would answer a lot of questions for me, like is there life after death?

Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
"73" Ford F100 (piece a %*&#^ Love it, I Just Love it!) "89" Ford Aerostar (a Frameless Hussy, But a good ol Gal.) "83" Yamaha XJ900RK (Best Gift of my life! From my best friends! RSCL) "86" Honda GoldWing GL1200 (OK, this part goes here, and this... this... I think goes on the truck.)

Be Cool Daddy-O {B-)>


----------
> From: Randy Collins
> To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: RE: SAFETY WARNING
> Date: Monday, April 07, 1997 9:22 PM
>
> Wow!
>
> That ALMOST unbelievable.
>
> Sounds like the publisher had a case of the HUA syndrome. HUA = Head Up A*S
>
> Randy Collins
> Project Ford, mostly in parts, Almost finished with the disassemble phase soon to move to the assemble phase!
>
> ----------
> From: David S. Love[SMTP:dlove iwaynet.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 1997 4:37 PM
> To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: SAFETY WARNING
>
> A popular four wheel drive magazine published a suggestion for siphoning
> fuel from your vehicle. Without going into unnecessary detail, the article
> involved using a shop vacuum to create the negative pressure required to
> start the flow of liquid. However, in using this procedure, fuel vapor will
> pass directly over the vacuum's motor. Many shop vacuums, including my own,
> utilize a motor with an exposed stator. Obviously the result could be
> disastrous. My owner's manual specifically states the vacuum is not to be
> used in the vicinity of explosive materials. Please convey this information
> to as many people as possible.
>
> Later!
>
> Dave Love
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>....

---

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.