Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 01:36:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #87
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/87
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:

Re: Getting better gas mileage PCV [JRFiero aol.com ]
Re: Pinion angles?? [JRFiero aol.com ]
Re: Split Fire [JRFiero aol.com ]
Re: '51 question [JRFiero aol.com ]
Re: '65 F-250 4BBL SWAP Help! [marko helix.net (marko maryniak) ]
Re: Engine sizes. ["Joe Schieber"
Re: Split Fire ["Jim" ]
Re: Wiring Diagram [Larry Brown ]
Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage ["Jim" ]
Re: Slick 50, apology [Steve & Rockette
Re: Split Fire [Steve & Rockette
Re: F150 Hesitation ?? [Steve & Rockette
Synthetic (Mobile 1) oil question... [Ken Payne ]
Re: Slick 50 ["Jim" ]
Ken Payne [ ]
Re: F150 Hesitation ?? [JIM HURD ]
Re: Split Fire ["Bruce A. Ramirez" ]
rear axle ratio,last resort mrthod [MLawing616 aol.com ]

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, 2 May 1997 23:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: JRFiero aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Getting better gas mileage PCV
Message-ID:

In a message dated 97-05-01 18:52:26 EDT, you write:


now),
it vents them into the carb. By fremoving this line to the carb and plugging
the
hole you will gain MPG and power.
>>

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's cra... I don't agree.
Unless your rings or valve stem seals are completely shot, there would be no
perceptible, or even measurable, increase in power or MPG from disconnecting
the PCV system. Additionally, if you simply remove the vacuum supplied by
the intake manifold (not the carb) to the PCV, you'll build up
greater-than-intended pressure in the crankcase, jeopardizing all gaskets and
seals which keep such pressure (and oil) in the crankcase. The PCV system
does, in fact, 'suck out gases,' when the combination of crankcase pressure
and intake manifold vacuum reach the levels designed into your particular
valve.
What you will increase is emissions. This isn't a good thing to do, and
the PCV system is basically a free emission control system, unlike air pumps
and the like.
Make sure the PCV valve is operating correctly (take it out, shake it, if
it rattles it's probably ok), clean the little filter described above which
allow air into the crankcase, and don't give any further thought.

Just read add'l posts on the subject. This 'agree to disagree' concept is
also, crap. Experience with one vehicle (or several) is not a valid sample,
and should be viewed as only one person's limited experience. If you think
disconnecting the PCV system resulted in greater power and/or mileage, your
test methodology is flawed. And watch the 'college student' cracks, these
young pups know more than we were ever taught, or have learned since.

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:20:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: JRFiero aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Pinion angles??
Message-ID:

In a message dated 97-05-02 11:17:26 EDT, you write:


F100 that is lowered a bunch (couldn't tell you how much exactly) and a 94
Ranger that is lowered 3". How do I check the angles and how do I correct
them?? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks,
>>
With non-constant velocity U-joints, the input to the shaft between the
U-joints should be parrallel to the output from that shaft. So - we all (?)
have the non-constant velocity U-joints (simply cross joints). The
transmission output shaft needs to be as close to parrallet to the rear end
input shaft (pinion) as possible. The angle between the driveshaft and the
transmission output shaft (and therefore the rear end input shaft) can vary
quite a bit, up to the point of binding the joint. Lowering a truck without
changing the angle of the rear pinion shaft should cause no problems. If a
truck is lowered by changing only one end or the other of a leaf spring, or
otherwise changing the pinion angle, then you've got potential problems,
which amount to vibration, and decreased U-joint and bearing life. Half a
degree is no problem.
Another post mentioned a bubble protractor, which is a common, simple
method of checking the angle. A Smartlevel, electronic woodworker's took,
works great. You could use any level and a framing square, a plumb bob and a
protractor, any ol' thing. But if the trucks were lowered normally, you have
no problems.

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: JRFiero aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Split Fire
Message-ID:

I bought a set of Splitfires way back from the Miata club (when they were
cheap), and noticed NO difference in performance, mileage, etc. Which
doesn't mean they don't work, just one piece of subjective data.
However, on my 11:1 compression 375hp/396 in a 56 Ford Panel, I found
Bosch Platinum to last approx twice as long as my normal favorite, Autolites.

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 23:20:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: JRFiero aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '51 question
Message-ID:

Gregg -
Great to hear that you have your grandfather's truck, like Dan W. Do
check out his website, by the way, http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623.
I sometimes worry that I have unnatural attractions to inanimate objects,
like trucks, but having a family heirloom which is also a truck, well, I'm
not sure what I'd do.
So, I agree with Lance's basic advice. If its close to original, I'd try
to keep it that way, but its your truck, and it all depends what you want it
for. For a daily driver which you'd want to take on the road occasionally,
would a stock truck do it for you? Perhaps not. Dan has a good philosophy,
'what would grandpa approve of?'
I'm lucky enough to have a '51 F1 as sort of a spare, with other vehicles
to drive if I need to, or for more comfort on long distance highway drives,
so I've pretty much decided to keep mine close to stock. My only connection
to the truck is that its my birth year, and I'd been looking for a good one
for years. I wanted a darn good original, or a darn good modified, and I
found the original.
You can get almost anything for these trucks, repo or NOS. Some little
things you can't get, like an ignition switch or the correct door locks, but
all the rubber is available, all bolt-on sheet metal. The critical part is
the cab, followed by the doors. But! as Dan says, you can spend a fortune
replacing everything to get it back to reliable, close to new condition. The
six cylinder is an unknown to me - flathead V8 stuff is still available.
1. I see no need to rebuild the engine before you fire it up. If the
bores are rusty, they're rusty, and you won't hurt them much by running it.
New oil, change it soon as though its a new motor, and watch the oil
pressure.
2. Get a Classic Motorbooks catalog, and put bunches of books on your
birthday and Christmas lists. There's a lot of info available. Find a
Hemmings Motor News, probably in your library. On the website there are
addresses for Dennis Carpenter Reproductions (DC Reproductions), Early Ford,
and others. Joblot Automotive used to be a good supplier, don't know if
they're on the website or even still around.
3. Oh, gas can surely get 'stale'. The carb is simple, get a gasket
kit, take it apart and clean it out. Drain per Dan's advice.
As a network engineer, you've got the deductive reasoning to do all this.
Good luck, and keep up with the mail.

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

Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:34:21 -0700
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '65 F-250 4BBL SWAP Help!
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Hey all,
> I've got a 1965 F-250 with a 390 and a FOMOCO carb that looks like a
>Holley 750 double pumper . I think this carb may be a bit of overkill
>because of the was it loads up on decelleration. The question is are there
>any smaller 650 cfm type carbs Fomoco Ok, that bolt on without adaptor
>plates etc.
>
I have a Holley 6919 on mine, a 600 cfm job. Jim Hurd (holley guru) says
the list 0819 (I think) and not the 6919 is the way to go. Really, you
don't need over 600 cfm unless you run steadily at over 5000 rpm (at least
that's what the graph in my Holley book says). The 6919 works fine just
change the jets to #63 from #62 and change the power valve from a 12.5" hg
to a 10.5" hg one (first stage of dual stage). Later, I'll email you Jim's
email to me which fixed my truck up real good.

marko in vancouver
marko helix.net
71 f250 4x4 360

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 22:55:20 -0400
From: "Joe Schieber"
To:
Subject: Re: Engine sizes.
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mike: My 56 Ford Truck Manual shows a 223,a 272 with 2 barrel and 4
Barrel,a 302 with 2 barrel and 4 barrel,and a 332 with 2 barrel. Mine is a
272 with a 2 barrel Holly.

----------
> From: Mike Young
> To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Subject: Re: Engine sizes.
> Date: Monday, April 28, 1997 2:57 PM
>
> Ken
> The 292 "Y" block shares its block with the 272 and the 312
> Mike Young
>
>
> At 01:43 PM 4/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >How about the 292?
> >
> >On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Mike Young wrote:
> >
> >>The little brother to the 289/302 is the 260.
> >>Mike young
> >>
> >>>2.3 Liter, 223 (straight six), 262 (straight six), 289/302 (whats
> >>>the smaller cousin size?), 351W, 351C, 351/400M, 332-428 FE,
> >>>427FE side oiler (in a class by itself!), 460, 6.4L diesel and
> >>>7.3L diesel.
> >>>
> >>>Ken
> >>>payne platinum.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>____________________________________________________________________
> >>>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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>____________________________________________________________________
> >>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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::
> >
> > Jesus Cardoso, a.k.a. Chuy
> > Graduate Research Assistant (Power System Automation Lab)
> > Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University
> > College Station, TX 77843-3128
> > w: 409-845-4623, h: 409-775-0737
> > Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2214, College Station, TX 77841-2214
> > e-mail: cardoso tamu.edu
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ee.tamu.edu/~cardoso
> >
> >:::::::::::::::"Todos en el mundo sonreimos en la misma
lengua.":::::::::::::::
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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, 2 May 1997 20:59:48 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: Split Fire
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Split Fire plugs are not what they are advertised! In their test they
removed old plugs and replaced them with Split Fires! Fact is any new plug
will shoe the same vast improvement. There was a long thread on this
subject on the fordnatics list. Dyno test showed that compared with other
brands there was no improvement or fell short. For a good spark you need a
flat surface and sharp edges with the proper gap.
In my opinion Split Fires are a rip-off! I will not go as far as faults
advertising, but they definitely miss-represented their product! It would
be hard to justify $5.00 for a plug that's just as good as a $0.99 plug!

----------
: From: James A. Doty
: To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
: Subject: Split Fire
: Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 3:12 PM
:
: Hi gang:
:
: I'm thinking of doing a complete tuneup within the next couple of weeks.
:
: I've heard some talk about the Split Fire spark plugs.
:
: I'm looking for opinions both good and bad. I realize Split Fire's
: cost more than standard plugs but I don't know anything else about them.
:
: The engine's a 351W (I think. I hear a lot of talk 'bout the 351M being
: used a lot in the '70's.)
:
: Is there an easy way to tell the 351W from the 351M? The van's a '78
E-150.
:
: Tnx
: ======================
: James A. Doty
: Assistant Web Master
: jamesd e-z.net
: E-Z Net, Inc.
: 209 NE 120th. Ave., Suite B
: Vancouver, WA 98684
: (360) 260-1122
: KI7EL
:
:
: ____________________________________________________________________
: 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, 02 May 1997 23:04:25 -0500
From: Larry Brown
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Wiring Diagram
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I found that if you go the Motor Manual web page, (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.motor.com/)
you can email them with what you want and they might be able to help you.

They sent me a copy of the dash wiring diagram for a '68 F-100.

Good Luck,

Larry

At 07:41 PM 5/2/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello Ford Truck Enthusiasts,
>
>I just found this list and hope that someone can direct me to a site on
the WWW
>where I can view and/or download the wiring diagram for a 1981 Bronco.
>
>Need to troubleshoot the rear window solenoid and wiring. Any help on this
area
>will be appreciated.
>
>Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.
>
>Regards
>
>Bill
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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, 2 May 1997 21:10:30 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm running a little late, but I would have advised the same thing Ken.
It's sad what companies get away with in advertising. I put Split Fire
Spark plugs in the same category! We need a list with these along with
Toilet paper oil filters, Spark boosters and the like.
Later!

----------
: From: Ken Payne
: To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
: Subject: Re: 1983 F100 gas mileage
: Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 3:08 PM
:
: -snip-
:
: > g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.
: > h)Many more I just cant think of right now!
: >
: >Harry.
: >
:
: Oh God, I know I'm opening a can of worms here but I've got to reply.
:
: Last fall the Federal Trade Commission fined Quaker State/Slick 50
: for false advertising. They said that Slick 50 could not back a single
: claim and that all government tests showed that Slick 50 did _not_
: reduce start-up wear, did _not_ increase the life of an engine and
: did _not_ reduce friction. Slick 50 is no longer advertising these
: claims since the government fine. Also, the FTC is investigating
: Slick 50 for consumer fraud - basically they've been doing what the
: chemists have been insisting for years - ripping people off. Teflon
: does not bond to metal. There is no chemical additive which will make
: it bond to metal. The way teflon is bonded is by using a combination
: of high temperature and pressure, neither of which exist in sufficient
: quantities in the engine areas that Slick 50 claims to bond to (bearing
: surfaces, etc). If the heat and pressure sufficient to bond teflon
existed
: in those areas you would spin a bearing or do other severe engine
: damage. In addition, teflon turns into an acid under intense heat
: (under the piston, around the valves, etc). Dupont tried years ago to
: stop sales of teflon to Slick 50 because Dupont's testing showing that
: teflon may harm the engine by clogging the oil filter and oil return
: passages. Slick 50 won a restraint of trade case but for a while they
could
: not use the trademark "teflon" instead they used "PFTE". Also, Slick 50
: has _never_ published their so-called "independent lab tests", the
: only thing they've said is "tests prove it". Where's the beef? If
: anyone is in doubt of what I've just said, I can provide you with the
: government web address where the FTC has published this information and
: the famous "snake oil" article address. The "snake oil" article goes
: further and basically puts Duralube and similar products in the same
: camp as Slick 50. Basically the only thing slick about any of these
: products is the marketing.
:
: I know I've probably started a flame war with this one but I've always
: believed that friends don't let friends put Slick 50 in their engines.
:
: Ken (zipping up asbestos suit)
:
:
: ____________________________________________________________________
: 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, 2 May 1997 21:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Slick 50, apology
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:40 PM 2/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I should not have opened my big mouth about Slick 50. Sorry. I
>realize there are die-hard people on both sides of the fence. What
>I've done is put links to the Snake Oil article and FTC press
>release on the web page.
>

No apologies are necessary if you're giving an opinion, my
father-in-law used Slick 50 in all his cars, you wouldn't
believe how badly worn out the were. I rebuilt 2 motors for
him, new crank in the 350 ( 85000 miles ) the bores were fair
enough for a rering, new cam, lifters, &, rocker arms tho.
His Olds (not a motor that should wear out early in its life)
was anchor material, got a junkyard core that was in better
condition, it only had 115000 miles on it. My dad's Olds has
over 200000 and runs perfectly, except a faint rocker arm tick
when its cold, But I know what that is. I DON'T use any additives,
200,000 miles on the '57, which was a used motor to begin with,
still runs strong, and 19 MPG!!!! Thats with 3.70:1 gears and
255/60R15's.

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Split Fire
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:35 PM 2/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
>James A. Doty wrote:
>>
>> Hi gang:
>>
>> I'm thinking of doing a complete tuneup within the next couple of weeks.
>>
>> I've heard some talk about the Split Fire spark plugs.
>>

>I think the Splitfire are probably better, but the only reason they're
>so expensive is because they are patented and no one else can make them.
>I know some company I forget who it is makes a V-plug that probably does
>the same thing as a splitfire there is just no actual space in the
>electrode. But there is a dip so there is furthur spark travel.
>
>Jonathan Martin
>'77 F150 460

That is the Accel plugs with the U Groove, they work quite well
I had a set in a 83 Mustang GL Ragtop, ten years before Splitfire's
hit the Parts Houses. And I have an old set in my '57.

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: F150 Hesitation ??
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:59 PM 2/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>I am having a problem with hesitation off the line with an F150. I have
an F150, 302, >1992, with 158K miles, auto trans with OD.

Chech for trouble codes, sounds like a TPS (throttle position sensor)
problem. Either that or the EGR valve is stuck.


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

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

Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 00:29:12 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Synthetic (Mobile 1) oil question...
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Now that the oil additive debate has been started... I've used
synthetic oil in the differential of my 67 F100 it seems to
work well - of course this is purely subjective. It was a move
that was highly recommended by alot of local builders, especially
since the diff fluid isn't changed often.

What I want is opinions on whether putting synthetic oil in
my 30 year old engine is going to bring any benefit. The engine
has 12,000 miles since the rebuild. I've heard that synthetic
oil can cause gasket leaks... true or false? The last thing
I want to do it lift a 670 lb V8 to replace a gasket - it was
too much of a bitch the last time I pulled it. I've always held
the belief that regular oil changes with a name brand oil which
meets current specs is the most important thing you can do to
extend engine life. I'm open to any benefits synth oil may
bring but I don't want to flush my money down the toilet.

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 21:25:21 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To make it clear, I don't think it was said it was bad for your car. It
doesn't do as they clam! I will also clarify Split Fires will not harm your
car, they don't do as they clam.

----------
: From: Michael & Linda Waak
: To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
: Subject: Slick 50
: Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 7:06 PM
:
: Hey folks'
:
: Since Ken kinda started this,
:
: I dont mean fer you all to lose what little respect I have in this bar,
but
: my family has been using Slick since it was an MLM product. Before
: QS ruined the stuff.
:
: I've used it in every car I have ever owned (I'm 33) and I've never had
: an oil related failure. (Bent 4 pushrods in a Chrysler 440 ((There I said
: it the C word)) but thats another story).
:
: What I'm saying is that I don't know why or if it works but as for me
I'll
: still buy/use it in all my cars/trucks, foreign/domestic until they pry
the
: from
: my hands.
:
: Thank you for your time. Flames can be sent to BClinton Whitehouse.Gov
:
: M
:
: Putting soapbox away for another week. NOT
: Beertender Set 'em up!!
:
:
:
:
:
: ____________________________________________________________________
: 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, 03 May 1997 00:33:45 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject:
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I promised on Thursday that I would post this information daily
until the voting deadline occurs. Its a little late for Friday
(12:32am on Saturday!) but better late than never....

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

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

Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 00:35:47 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: F150 Hesitation ??
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Phil Conrad,
Are you getting any codes with the KOEO, continuous codes, or
dynamic response codes?

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

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

Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 00:59:21 -0400
From: "Bruce A. Ramirez"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Split Fire
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James A. Doty wrote:
>
> Hi gang:
>
> I'm thinking of doing a complete tuneup within the next couple of weeks.
>
> I've heard some talk about the Split Fire spark plugs.
>
> I'm looking for opinions both good and bad. I realize Split Fire's
> cost more than standard plugs but I don't know anything else about them.
>
> The engine's a 351W (I think. I hear a lot of talk 'bout the 351M being
> used a lot in the '70's.)
>
> Is there an easy way to tell the 351W from the 351M? The van's a '78 E-150.
>
> Tnx
> ======================
> James A. Doty
> Assistant Web Master
> jamesd e-z.net
> E-Z Net, Inc.
> 209 NE 120th. Ave., Suite B
> Vancouver, WA 98684
> (360) 260-1122
> KI7EL
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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 ....

---

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.