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 <eodani 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 lofcom.com
Subject: 1964 Ford pick-up
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I work for the public library in Knoxville, TN and we are frequently asked
questions about 1964 Ford trucks. We have never been able to find
adequate information on them to help the persons that are restoring them.
Specifically, the current question deals with a 1964 F-100, 292 V8 and
they need a wiring diagram. It would be helpful for us if someone could
recommend a good source for restoring and repairing these trucks. Thank
you for your help.

*******************************************************************************
Shelly W. Robinson (swrobins korrnet.org)
1109 Hurstbourne Lane/Maryville, TN 37803-6747
423-681-8249
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:38:44 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: engine sizes -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>>> 04/30/97 12:48am >>>
>Hi yall,
>
>I want to make sure the 226 flathead 6 is not forgotten, as it was the first
>6 Ford produced. There was also a 254 version for some buses, and 50-54 2
>ton trucks.
>The 48-52 F7 and F8 used a 337 V8 derived, I think, from a Lincoln. Flathead
>V8s
>were 221, 239, and 256, and there was a 60 hp for a while, but I dont know
>the disp.
>The model A, B, and C fours were 200 cid, and for a short while, a 134 cid 4
>from Ford tractors was available in small trucks in the early forties. Also
>the first ohv sixes in 52-53 were 215 cid. Hope this is of interest to all.

>Nick Huntington
>50 F2 226-6 4 sp crash box

Thanks, they've been added to the form.

-Ken

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:38:44 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: engine sizes -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>>> 04/30/97 12:48am >>>
>Hi yall,
>
>I want to make sure the 226 flathead 6 is not forgotten, as it was the first
>6 Ford produced. There was also a 254 version for some buses, and 50-54 2
>ton trucks.
>The 48-52 F7 and F8 used a 337 V8 derived, I think, from a Lincoln. Flathead
>V8s
>were 221, 239, and 256, and there was a 60 hp for a while, but I dont know
>the disp.
>The model A, B, and C fours were 200 cid, and for a short while, a 134 cid 4
>from Ford tractors was available in small trucks in the early forties. Also
>the first ohv sixes in 52-53 were 215 cid. Hope this is of interest to all.

>Nick Huntington
>50 F2 226-6 4 sp crash box

Thanks, they've been added to the form.

-Ken

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:49:10 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Ford tech address -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

A guy from Ford emailed me and told me that this service is available
only once to an individual - information will not be given a second
time to anyone. This email address should *not* be given to everyone
to use to email Ford with their questions. This addressis mainly to
provide build sheets for vehicles from 1967 to 1986. Each time this
service is used it costs Ford approximately $500 in research expenses
(not cheap). So use it if you need a build sheet and if its absolutely
necessary then use it. Otherwise we could all lose this valuable
service if its abused. I was informed that the best thing you can do
for help from Ford is to call 1-800-392-FORD. Lets be cautious about
where we post this address and what we say its for. I saw someone post
it on a Usenet group - not a good thing! I'd hate for them to close
shop on it because of email floods and expenses.


>>> "Tim and Jolee Hann" 04/30/97 03:08am >>>
>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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:55:17 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: dash -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

A vinyl repair kit can work wonders if you take your time. If thats
not a viable solution you can order dash covers that mold over the
existing dash and look original. If you go the dash cover route
try calling one of the vendors on our suppliers page.

Ken

>>> "Neil Weidner" 04/29/97 04:54pm >>>
>Hey I have a '79 Ford F-150 that I'm fixing up... there is one little crack
>in the dash and I'm wondering if there is something that I can use to fix
>it? I'm also looking for a box if anyone can help.
>
>
>Thanks
>Neil

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:23:03 -0500
From: Richard Green
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: SOHC 427
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Daver wrote:
>
> 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


Ted (FMM) has a Website too. I don't work for him, just bought parts
from him off and on over 10 years. Knows his Fords.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordmanted.com/
fyi, rlg

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: LanceWaldn aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1964 Ford pick-up
Message-ID:

First try Classic Trucks Magazine. (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mcmullenargus.com). Lots of
great ads.
Next contact Dennis CarpenterReproductions P.O. Box 26398. Charlotte, NC
28221-6398 (704)786-8139. These people have what you need restrore your tuck.
Lance

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:33:28 -0500
From: Richard Green
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Bronco II
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi.. I have a 86 Bronco II 4x4 with the 2.9 v6. The Wife realy likes
this little truck, boy can it whip into a parking space at Walmart...
I have had some transmission problems. First one went out, I replaced it
with a junk yard special and it has been ok BUT... it's now making noise
a growelling sound. A tranny shop said that the automatic in these
trucks are only good for 80k or so. He says it just not a very good
trany. Course he will rebuild it for $1200.00 To the point now.

Any good replacement transmissions. What about a B&M rebuilt one or
newer trans? Also the 2.9 is a little short on getup and go, with my gas
milage at 14-15 on the hiway. I know some have put a 5.0 in them but
what 'bout a newer Explorer motor?
Thanks all
Rlgreen
67 mustang
86 Bronco II
76 Chev Caprice (yea I know)
67 Chev stepside (lowered)
71 VW Squareback (if you don't know don't ask)
74 VW Bug
78 Ford E250 460 (monster van)
76 Toyota Celica GT (V8 swap some day)
96 Polaris Xpress ATV
Yes I have teenagers...

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:06:03 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: 302 fuel mileage
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

From: SSYRV1::HURDJ "JIM HURD" 30-APR-1997 00:01:14.45
To: IN%"fordnatics lofcom.com"
CC: HURDJ
Subj: 302 fuel mileage


I can't check my fuel mileage very accurately from one tank full of fuel
because it is impossible to fill the tank to the very top (unless you
fill up at the same pump each time and park in the exact same spot each
time. So I figure my fuel mileage over several tankfuls.

In 1995 I drove my truck 7883 miles and averaged 20.6 mpg.
In 1996 I drove my truck 7270 miles and averaged 20.9 mpg.

(My truck doesn't get used from December thru March because of the salt
used on the roads in the Central NY area....bought it new in December of
1978 and only drove it in snow three times that I remember....now has
172K on it and it still looks pretty much like new.)

My best fuel milage on a trip was on the return from Florida last year.
That was all interstate driving, 1271 miles and averaged 24.2 mpg.

These mileage numbers are a little high, as my odometer reads 102 miles
compared to 100 miles on the yardsticks on the interstate. (2% high).

I built this engine with fuel mileage in mind. I don't make near the
power of the FE's, but my little 302 pulls its 4460# truck along in
fair fashion for its displacement.

I can't imagine getting 8, 10, or 12 mpg like some on this list. But
they must really have fun with all that power!

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:16:21 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: engine sizes
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

The Ford V-8 60 hp engine had a 2.60" bore x 3.20" stroke,
yielding 136 cid.

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:23:18 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Please Read! Survey/Voting forms now on line
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

The survey and voting forms are now on-line. These forms
are _not_ accessible via the normal web site and have
no links to or from the site. This is to keep the 100-200 daily
site visitors from using them.

The survey simply asks for year, model and engine size.
There is a small comment box if you model or engine size
is not listed. You may fill out a survey for each of
your vehicles. After submitting the survey you will be
brought to the voting form.

The vote concerns whether or not we should split into two
lists: pre-1980 and 1980+. Please note that results are not
carved in stone because if we do not receive enough donations
to cover a second list we cannot have one. Regardless of
the vote outcome donations will be used to cover list expenses.
Sorry this issue has to come up again but our traffic is high
and several people have complained and/or unsubscribed because
of the bandwidth. If the vote fails, I will _not_ bring it
up again - the members will be responsible for making it an
issue.

Please vote only once! The voting page has a links at the
bottom that can be used to bring you back to the survey. There
are no links to the "outside world" from the forms.

The web address is: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks/survey.html

Voting ends Saturday, May 3rd at 11:59 pm. As was the case last
time, results with user comments will get posted to the list.
No email addresses or other identifying data will be posted. Comments
may be edited to remove anything which may identify the user (ie.
"I have a 1987 F250" would be changed to "I have a 198x Fxxx").

Thanks everyone!
Ken, "List Mom"

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:24:48 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 302 fuel mileage
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

Thank You!

Everyone else here almost had me convinced that my truck doesn't get 20mpg!

Harry.



>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Wed Apr 30 12:09:11 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id PAA21929; Wed,
30 Apr 1997 15:05:52 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:06:03 -0500 (EST)
>From: JIM HURD
>Subject: 302 fuel mileage
>To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
>Message-id:
>X-VMS-To: IN%"FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com"
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Precedence: list
>X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>
>From: SSYRV1::HURDJ "JIM HURD" 30-APR-1997 00:01:14.45
>To: IN%"fordnatics lofcom.com"
>CC: HURDJ
>Subj: 302 fuel mileage
>
>
>I can't check my fuel mileage very accurately from one tank full of fuel
>because it is impossible to fill the tank to the very top (unless you
>fill up at the same pump each time and park in the exact same spot each
>time. So I figure my fuel mileage over several tankfuls.
>
>In 1995 I drove my truck 7883 miles and averaged 20.6 mpg.
>In 1996 I drove my truck 7270 miles and averaged 20.9 mpg.
>
>(My truck doesn't get used from December thru March because of the salt
>used on the roads in the Central NY area....bought it new in December of
>1978 and only drove it in snow three times that I remember....now has
>172K on it and it still looks pretty much like new.)
>
>My best fuel milage on a trip was on the return from Florida last year.
>That was all interstate driving, 1271 miles and averaged 24.2 mpg.
>
>These mileage numbers are a little high, as my odometer reads 102 miles
>compared to 100 miles on the yardsticks on the interstate. (2% high).
>
>I built this engine with fuel mileage in mind. I don't make near the
>power of the FE's, but my little 302 pulls its 4460# truck along in
>fair fashion for its displacement.
>
>I can't imagine getting 8, 10, or 12 mpg like some on this list. But
>they must really have fun with all that power!
>
>Jim in Central NY
>'79 F-150 (302!)
>'92 Topaz (3.0l)
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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
>



---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:29:16 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 1964 Ford pick-up -Reply
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

On our website (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks) there is....

---

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.