Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 17:07:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #78
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/78
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:

Re: Ford tech address ["Tim and Jolee Hann"
Re: Low sulfur diesel questions [Michael Fischer
brand biggots [Stuart Varner
350 in a '64? [John Strauss
Re: 350 in a '64? [Mike Young ]
Re: SOHC 427 [silent.bob juno.com ]
Motor Oil [Stuart Varner
1964 Ford pick-up [shelly w robinson
engine sizes -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
engine sizes -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Re: Ford tech address -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
dash -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Re: SOHC 427 [Richard Green ]
Re: 1964 Ford pick-up [LanceWaldn aol.com ]
Bronco II [Richard Green ]
302 fuel mileage [JIM HURD ]
Re: engine sizes [JIM HURD ]
Please Read! Survey/Voting forms now [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Re: 302 fuel mileage ["Harry Jennings"
1964 Ford pick-up -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)

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: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:08:02 -0700
From: "Tim and Jolee Hann"
To:
Subject: Re: Ford tech address
Message-Id:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC5502.F39D5040"

This is a multi- part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC5502.F39D5040
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Here is a E Mail address for Ford Customer =
Assistance.........cacinfo ford.com
----
From: Erik J. O'Daniel
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 2:03 AM
Subject: Ford tech address

Can anyone give me an address for someone at Ford who could possibly
tell me how to tell the difference between a 272 and a 292, and, more
specifically, the year and possibly the model of car that a 292 came
out of?

I've looked, and looked, and looked at that engine and the only
numbers I find are cast into the water pump, which probably doesn't
help me.

Erik O'Daniel


____________________________________________________________________
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



------=_NextPart_000_01BC5502.F39D5040
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





http-equiv=3DContent-Type>




Here is a E Mail address for Ford Customer=20
Assistance.........cacinfo ford.com
----
From: Erik J. O'Daniel varney.idbsu.edu>
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 2:03 AM
Subject: Ford tech address

Can anyone give me an address for someone at =
Ford who=20
could possibly
tell me how to tell the difference between a 272 and a 292, and, =
more
specifically, the year and possibly the model of car that a 292 came
out of?

I've looked, and looked, and looked at that engine and the only
numbers I find are cast into the water pump, which probably doesn't
help me.

Erik O'Daniel


____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via
href=3D"http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/">http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:
href=3D"mailto:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com">fordtrucks-request lofcom.c=
om
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use:
href=3D"mailto:kpayne mindspring.com">kpayne mindspring.com




------=_NextPart_000_01BC5502.F39D5040--

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:59:25 -0400
From: Michael Fischer
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Low sulfur diesel questions
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

wrd pacbell.net wrote:
>
> In SoCal we are forced to use a new low sulfur diesel fuel. Fleets with
> the 7.2 and Power Stroke engines are finding premature wear on injector
> springs and injector pumps. Anybody else having these problems? Any
> solutions, such as adding 10 weight oil to the fuel?
>
> Randy
> San Diego
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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
The additive that works well is the Standadyne Performance Formula which
is produced by the pump maker. Al

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:38:16 -0700
From: Stuart Varner
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: brand biggots
Message-id:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Count me in on the brand biggots list. NUKE GM!

STU

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:10:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: 350 in a '64?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>My reasoning is as follows: I had the 350 block, I've got friends with
>350 knowledge, and you'd be amazed by what is actually powering a lot of
>vehicles out there, namely 350's. There cheap, parts are available almost
>anywhere, and it's different, I've never been main stream.
>

Chris:
I gotta argue with you here. You yourself say that the 350 is
powering a lot of vehicles out there, so how are you being "different"?
Parts are just as available and just as cheap for a 302 as the 350 Chevy.
If you wanna be different, build that 262 with parts from Clifford Research
and smoke a 350.

John

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Young

To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 350 in a '64?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

8:10 AM 4/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>My reasoning is as follows: I had the 350 block, I've got friends with
>>350 knowledge, and you'd be amazed by what is actually powering a lot of
>>vehicles out there, namely 350's. There cheap, parts are available almost
>>anywhere, and it's different, I've never been main stream.
>>
>
>Chris:
> I gotta argue with you here. You yourself say that the 350 is
>powering a lot of vehicles out there, so how are you being "different"?
> Parts are just as available and just as cheap for a 302 as the 350 Chevy.
>If you wanna be different, build that 262 with parts from Clifford Research
>and smoke a 350.
>
>John
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
I agree with John on this one. The Ford/Chevy battle will never cease but
if you want to be different a 350 is not the way to go. Different is a
nailhead Buick or a straight eight or in my case a straight six (223) with
three carbs (1bbl) and split headers...that will smoke the tires and eat
camaros for lunch.
Mike

94 Rnager 4.0l
51 Ford Coupe Flathead
53 Ford F100 223 six

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:44:57 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: SOHC 427
Message-ID:

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:40:25 -0500 Daver writes:
>Stuart Varner wrote:
>>
>> I saw a brand new SOHC 427 motor...still in the crate...all 600 +
>HP
>> (Excuse me, I must go change my clothes......)
>> in the Ford Trader Magazine, June Isuue. The offering price.
>> $18,000.00
>> So much for dreaming BIG!
>> If you're seroius I could probably find the number....I may have
>drooled
>> part of it away.
>
>Call Ford Man's Mustang in Houston TX he doesn't have a cammer but he
>can set you up with a 427 side oiler.
>
>Molater
>
>Daver

You can hit his web site that I set up for him at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordmanted.com I plan on having him doing some of my 5.0
swap for my Ranger. If im not mistaken, his email address is
fordman aol.com


.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ fox mail.icso.com
/ / \(..)/ ----- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordmanted.com (Mustang Shop)
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.icso.net/ranger (Ranger Site)
//// / // : : --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Coming Soon)
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[95 Ranger XLT 2.3L]=[silent.bob juno.com]===
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:40:05 -0700
From: Stuart Varner
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Motor Oil
Message-id:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In my former days as an employee of XXXXXXX Oil, parent Company of
XXXXXline motor oil, Much research was done on the effects motor oil
weights had on engines. Some studies were done on various police
departments who had the 4.6L Crown Vics....tried to run
10W40......owners manual calls for 5W30. The police departments almost
burnt the motors up because the oil was too thick and engine tolerances
were so tight, couldn't get enough oil on the top end of the motor.

Other interesting/old news regarding single weight oil. Some of the
studies showed multi-visc. oils do not break down as they should and did
not provide adequate summer time protection on the "thicker" end of the
oils. In other words, 5W 30 won't do the job as well as Super HPO 30
or Super HPO 40 single weigght oils in the summer. The HPO oils are
high detergent oils which should be run in temps that are consttant and
always over 32 degrees F.
I for one run Super HPO 30 in my 71 F-100 360 and in my 89 Merc Grand
Marq. (302, 130,000 trouble free tight and dry miles) in the summer
months when the weather is nice. In the winter, I switch to 5W30 in the
Mercury and 10W 30 in the F-100. I run full synthetic 5W 30 in my 95
Special Service Crown Victoria LX (4.6 Liter)year round.

There are several advantages to synthetic and some disadvantages...
Advantages......better lubrication qualities, better heat disipation,
Studies from "the"
company showed two identical engines dynoed for 100,000 plus miles.
Changes were made at appropriate intervals, engines were torn down. The
motor with synthetic oil provided
little to no indications of wear. The other standard mineral based oil
showed much greater signs of wear.

Disadvantages........Cost, AND you still need to change oil every 3,000
miles or less depending on your driving situation.

As far as putting modern oil in an old engine.....the more advanced, the
better....
it can help with protection better than the old non-detergent oils. As
far as putting
new oils into an old engine with sludge build up that has been running
non-detergent oil, it may braek things loose. Sounds logical to me.

Make your own decisions, experiment a little, see which oil runs best in
your engine. CHanging brands and oil weghts will not cause
problems.....unless you run a motor oil with a high parafin base, then
you can start having problems. I AM TRYING TO KEEP
BRANDS OUT OF THE MOTOR OIL DEBATE. We all have preferences....that is
why I am in the Ford camp. Motor oils are like milk and gasoline(for
the most part)
They all come from basically the same place (pipeline shipments came to
our terminal from other companies, barges came from other companies,
and we put in our own additives). Oils (been to a plant that was
bottling oil for Companies a, b, c, d, e, etc. including there own
branded oil from the same spout!) and gasolines have different
additives which make them slightly different. NO Flame wars here
please! I know from experience on the pipelines and barges gas is all
the same, except for the additives
( I recommend buying 89 or 92-94 octane, they have a greater percentage
of additives
and detergents which help keep modern injectors and fuel systems cleaner
than 87 octane)

Sorry this was so lengthy! Hope it helps someone.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: shelly w robinson
To: FORDTRUCKS ....

---

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.