Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 10:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #91
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/91
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:

RE: 1965 Ford F-100 Owners Manual [DC Beatty
Slick 50? [John Strauss
Slick 50 [John Strauss
amp light on [John Strauss
454 in an Econoline????? [John Strauss
Re: Getting better gas mileage PCV ( ["Harry Jennings"
Re: Slick 50 [Daver ]
Re: Slick 50 ["Harry Jennings"
Re: 454 in an Econoline????? ["Jim" ]
Re: 454 in an Econoline????? ["Harry Jennings"
Re: MAP woes [Tom ]
Re: Slick 50 ["Jim" ]
So. Cal. Street Legal Drags Pomona ["Jim" ]
Ranger rear axle ratio [Jim Bovenmyer 4-6640
Re: Ranger rear axle ratio [Mike Young ]
Re: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question [PDupont105 aol.com ]
Re: Slick 50 [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Re: Shocks for 94 Ranger [silent.bob juno.com ]
rings wont seal [Gerald and Lisa Hoel

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: 04 May 97 23:00:24 EDT
From: DC Beatty
To: "'INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: RE: 1965 Ford F-100 Owners Manual
Message-ID:

Yes. Bob Johnson's Auto Literature in Massachusetts somewhere. They have a link
off of the Classicar website--http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.classicar.com/home.htm

or

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.classicar.com/vendors/bobjautl/home.htm
email: 102433,100 CompuServe.com

or

Paul Politis Auto Literature http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.classicar.com/vendors/litera/litera.htm


Give them a try!!

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302
----------
From: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 1997 10:59 AM
To: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 1965 Ford F-100 Owners Manual

Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by
dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id MAA12191; Sun, 4 May 1997 12:58:24 -0400
Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA18441; Sun,
4 May 1997 12:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 13:00:29 -0700
From: Barry Price
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 1965 Ford F-100 Owners Manual
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

I am currently restoring a 1965 F-100. Does anyone know where I can
obtain an owners manual?


____________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:40:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Slick 50?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> g)Add Slick50 or Rislone to your engine.

God, please DO NOT do this to your engine. If anyone is interested I can
post a) my own personal experience with this CRAP and b) a study document
that will explain why you should RUN from Slick50 and their ilk (it's pretty
big so I don't want to post this unless y'all are really interested).

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

Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:40:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Slick 50
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>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.
>
You go Ken! I too have seen the data you refer to and more but was suckered
into putting this into my unsuspecting 302 because a "friend" gave me a
bottle free and I thought "what can it hurt?" Don't worry about the flames
- I'll back you up on this one.

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

Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:40:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: amp light on
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I recently bought (used from a dealership) a '93 F150 Supercab 4 x 2. So
>for I love it. But having never owned a pickup before I am totally
>unfamiliar with trucks historical pecadillos. Here's my problem- I
>live in Las Vegas and we are coming into the warmer seasons and have
>begun using the A/C during the days. During my drive home from work
>though I have noticed the amp light in the console comes on. Sometimes
>it goes out when I accelerate. But now more often than not it stays
>on. I only notice this at night when the headlights are on, reguardless
>of the A/C. Could this be a short through the lights? Or alternator
>problems developing or just a bad cell in the battery? Has anyone else
>had this problem. I still have a warranty through the dealership so If
>it's something they should be fixing before I tear into it.
>
Since you only notice it at night I assume it is on very dim, i.e., not as
bright as when the key is in the "on" position and the engine not running?
If so you most likely have a bad diode in the alternator.

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

Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:40:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 454 in an Econoline?????
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Ford put a 351M in any E-150,
>250, or 350 Vans in 1978. Small block 302 and 351W. Large block, what, a
>454?
>
Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! A 454 is a CHEVY damnit!!! I am
losing my mind and my patience with you people! 460. 460. 460. 460.
460. 460!

OK, rant over. Happy, happy. Joy, joy.

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

Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 21:44:30 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Getting better gas mileage PCV (The Right Stuff!)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

>>
>>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.

Oh, I see. Since you do not agree then it must be crap!?


>> 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.

I have a rebuilt engine. After 1200mi I datached the PCV valve and noticed
improvements in power & MPG. I helped a friend do this to the rebuilt 289
(after about 1500mi) in his '68 Fastback. He too, noticed a BIG improvements!


> 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.

WRONG! On both of the above mentioned cars the PCV line went the the base
of the carb!
There are about 25,000mi on the 289 and close to 80,000mi on my 351M and NO OIL
LEAKS or any other problems.
Since the vents are left open there is no excess pressure.
Plus, dumping these gases into the carb is like hokking your carb up to the tail
pipe.

> 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.

Again, I guess it is crap if you do not agree! (What a putz!).



>Experience with one vehicle (or several) is not a valid sample,
>>and should be viewed as only one person's limited experience.

Then how would you test something? Flip a coin? I do things and see how they
turn out! If it causes problems I would not tell others to do it (Duh!).



> If you think
>>disconnecting the PCV system resulted in greater power and/or mileage, your
>>test methodology is flawed.

Oh, although it works my method is flawed?! I see. Rather than DO something and
see how it turns out you relay on the 1-900-future calls. Now there is a
*correct* methodology!



> And watch the 'college student' cracks, these
>>young pups know more than we were ever taught, or have learned since.
>
This was NOT a *College Crack*! The reason I asked if he was a college
student
is because his Email has 'EDU' in it. This is common on Email sent fromcolleges.
I was going to ask him which college he goes to since I, too, am a
collegestudent.
I got my two year degree in '94. I have worked as a police officer since. I
amnow going back to school part-time to get my four year degree (I hope to
worh>for the FBI in few years.).

Iguess you were right about one thing. Us college students DO know more than you
were ever taught, of have learned since.!!!!!!!!

Harry.

PS
The ONLY reason I mentioned the thing about the PCV valve is becuase I said my
truck ('71 F-100 longbed w/ a '77 351M/C6) get an average of 17MPG and someone
asked me what I have done to it to get that milage.
___________________________________________________________________
>>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
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>--- end forwarded text
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> L.O.F. Communications charlie lofcom.com
> Web, Email Services And More! Email info lofcom.com
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>
>



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

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

Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 23:51:46 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Strauss wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> You go Ken! I too have seen the data you refer to and more but was suckered
> into putting this into my unsuspecting 302 because a "friend" gave me a
> bottle free and I thought "what can it hurt?" Don't worry about the flames
> - I'll back you up on this one.

Slick 50, STP, Rstore ect...... why? If you use a good motor oil and
chang it and the filter often you do not need them. I agree with John
all you are doing is mixing an oil (the carrier) of unknown pedigree
with what you use, bad you have no idea what reaction your oil and the
carrier will have (at times mixing causes oil break down due to
additives), and anything suspended it the oil will be caught in the
filter befor it goes to the engine (if it isn't those oil passages are
pretty small to pump suspended particals through.

This comment comes from Daver owner of 87 Ford with just shy of 412,000
original miles (never had the rocker cover or oil pan off) and only been
out 2800.00 in repairs none of which were engine related. I follow my
own advise. BTW the machinest called on my 406 (same philosophy) it's
going through a refresh after a colapsed lifter (I tried hydrolic will
not make that mistake again) 87,000 miles on it moly rings it has .002
cylinder wear and no ridge.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 21:54:02 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

Lets forget about the debate about if Slick50 works or not for a minute. Lets
focus on 'harm to engines'.

I do not believe Slick50 will plug a oil filter or Fram would not have the
DuraGuard filter (which has PTFE in it). Why would they put something in their
filters that could cause failure? That would be asking to be sued!

I also mentioned Rislone. This 'Snake Oil' has been around a LONG time. It
doesn't *add* anything to the metal. It allows the parts to produce a superfine
finish.

Again, I only mentioned these things because people asked me how I averaged 17
MPG with a 351M/C6.

Harry.





>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Sun May 4 21:46:24 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id AAA10435; Mon,
5 May 1997 00:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Message-ID:
>Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 23:51:46 -0500
>From: Daver
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Subject: Re: Slick 50
>References:
>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
>
>John Strauss wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>> You go Ken! I too have seen the data you refer to and more but was suckered
>> into putting this into my unsuspecting 302 because a "friend" gave me a
>> bottle free and I thought "what can it hurt?" Don't worry about the flames
>> - I'll back you up on this one.
>
>Slick 50, STP, Rstore ect...... why? If you use a good motor oil and
>chang it and the filter often you do not need them. I agree with John
>all you are doing is mixing an oil (the carrier) of unknown pedigree
>with what you use, bad you have no idea what reaction your oil and the
>carrier will have (at times mixing causes oil break down due to
>additives), and anything suspended it the oil will be caught in the
>filter befor it goes to the engine (if it isn't those oil passages are
>pretty small to pump suspended particals through.
>
>This comment comes from Daver owner of 87 Ford with just shy of 412,000
>original miles (never had the rocker cover or oil pan off) and only been
>out 2800.00 in repairs none of which were engine related. I follow my
>own advise. BTW the machinest called on my 406 (same philosophy) it's
>going through a refresh after a colapsed lifter (I tried hydrolic will
>not make that mistake again) 87,000 miles on it moly rings it has .002
>cylinder wear and no ridge.
>
>Molater
>
>Daver
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:22:42 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: 454 in an Econoline?????
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> >I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Ford put a
351M in any E-150,
> >250, or 350 Vans in 1978. Small block 302 and 351W.
Large block, what, a
> >454?
> >
> Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! A 454 is a
CHEVY damnit!!! I am
> losing my mind and my patience with you people! 460.
460. 460. 460.
> 460. 460!
>
> OK, rant over. Happy, happy. Joy, joy.

I put a Ford 454 with 2bbl fuel injection and removed the
PCV valve and Thermostat to improve Mileage (45mpg) in my
F100 Stepside. Any suggestions?

Easy there John. Everything's all right now! Your pill will
be working any minute!




Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
"73" Ford F100 (Daily driver. Getting better every day.)
"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.)
"77" Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)

These are "The Good Old Days"!
Be Cool Daddy-O B-)>

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

Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 22:33:18 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 454 in an Econoline?????
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Sun May 4 22:24:27 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id BAA13102; Mon,
5 May 1997 01:20:38 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>From: "Jim"
>To:
>Subject: Re: 454 in an Econoline?????
>Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 22:22:42 -0700
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Priority: 3
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Message-ID:
>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
>
>> >I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Ford put a
>351M in any E-150,
>> >250, or 350 Vans in 1978. Small block 302 and 351W.
>Large block, what, a
>> >454?
>> >
>> Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! A 454 is a
>CHEVY damnit!!! I am
>> losing my mind and my patience with you people! 460.
>460. 460. 460.
>> 460. 460!
>>
>> OK, rant over. Happy, happy. Joy, joy.
>
>I put a Ford 454 with 2bbl fuel injection and removed the
>PCV valve and Thermostat to improve Mileage (45mpg) in my
>F100 Stepside. Any suggestions?
>
>Easy there John. Everything's all right now! Your pill will
>be working any minute!
>
>
Yeah, and his Yamaha only get 20 MPG! What a Dumb Ass! Maybe if you tried some
of the things I mentioned instead of just being an "Armchair Mechanic" you would
know they work!

Harry

'71 F-100 longbed 351M/C4 (17MPG average, 21 max)
'71 F-100 shortbed 315SVO/AOD
'92 ZX-600E Ninja (43MPG - Top speed of 172 MPH!)

"It's like talking to a cow. No matter what you say, all you get back is a big
MOOOWWWW!"
>
>Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
>"73" Ford F100 (Daily driver. Getting better every day.)
>"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.)
>"77" Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)
>
>These are "The Good Old Days"!
> Be Cool Daddy-O B-)>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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: Sun, 04 May 1997 22:56:03 -0700
From: Tom
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: MAP woes
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:39 PM 04/05/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Tom,
> What is the code that you are getting? (I have never heard of
>a "hooped" MAP sensor.)
>

Hooped -- as in toasted, busted, f*, chevy part... I could go on...

I get the following codes:

522 -- Clutch not in during KOEO test
172 --

Hold on a sec. I could have sworn that the second code I got was a MAP
sensor error. My buddy mechanic's code reader confirmed it. But now as I
look in my Haynes manual, it says a 172 is a HO2S lean error. Now I'm
really confused.

I'm looking at the sheet where I wrote down the error codes. I have 522 for
the KOEO test, and a 172 for the continuous codes. I thought a 172 was a
MAP sensor problem, but apparently I was mistaken. It says here it
indicates lean during a running test. However, I did not perform a running
test -- all I did was the KOEO and the continuous codes.

Question -- what does a 172 mean in either a KOEO or continous code test? I
must have looked at the 72 in the MAP error list instead of the 172...

Sounds like a clogged fuel filter???
___
TTTTT OO M M The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick. |~~~|
T O O MM MM o o
T O O M M M Be young, have fun, *
T OO M M and drink lots of beer!!! `-'

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 00:39:52 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Harry! Where have you been?


>Fram would not have the
> DuraGuard filter (which has PTFE in it). Why would they
put something in their
> filters that could cause failure? That would be asking to
be sued!

Your darn straight on that Harry! I'm sorry to say, I'm not
quite up to date on this. What is PTFE (460 in a boat for
all I know)?


>It doesn't *add* anything to the metal. It allows the parts
to produce a superfine
> finish.

Is this a bad thing?

Again, I only mentioned these things because people asked me
how I averaged 17
MPG with a 351M/C6.

What happened? I thought you were getting 21mpg. You'd
better check your vacuum lines. Well got to go. Just wanted
to ask where you been! Take it easy!



Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
"73" Ford F100 (Daily driver. Getting better every day.)
"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.)
"77" Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)

These are "The Good Old Days"!
Be Cool Daddy-O B-)>

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 03:55:13 -0700
From: "Jim"
To:
Subject: So. Cal. Street Legal Drags Pomona
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pomona Raceway has Street Legal Drags on Saturdays and
Sundays for more information concerning Street Legal Drags
call their 24 hour Hot Line at (909) 392-4795 (Recorded
message) $10 Watch or Race under 16 Free! They also have a
mailing list!

anyone interested in going?




Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
"73" Ford F100 (Daily driver. Getting better every day.)
"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.)
"77" Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)

These are "The Good Old Days"!
Be Cool Daddy-O B-)>

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 07:44:32 -0500
From: Jim Bovenmyer 4-6640
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Ranger rear axle ratio
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-MD5: 4uCW41lRCKuv2iFZjVX7AA==

What is the highest ratio avail. on the Ranger. I believe I have the 3.73 in my
94. I have the 2.3L and need all the help I can get...

--Jim

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

Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mike Young
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Ranger rear axle ratio
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:44 AM 5/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>What is the highest ratio avail. on the Ranger. I believe I have the 3.73
in my
>94. I have the 2.3L and need all the help I can get...
>
>--Jim
According to my 94 sales brochure the 2.3L has has two options 3.73 and 4.10
(4.10 manual shift only) The 3.0L has 3.45, 3.73 and 4.10. The 4.0L has
3.08, 3.27, 3.55, and 3.73. What did you need help with?

Mike Young
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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: Mon, 5 May 1997 09:17:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: PDupont105 aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question...
Message-ID:

Would you recommend running synthetic on an 87,000 mile engine to give it a
good cleansing and then switch back to regular oil? I've been reading all
these letters and am begining to wonder if it might not be a bad idea.

88 Taurus (87,000 mi)
87 Bronco II (83,000 mi)

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 09:18:25 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Slick 50
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Everybody who downs Slick 50 and other additives keeps saying just
change your oil, maintain your engine properly, etc. So how do you guys
know which oil/filter to use.

We have a guy down the block who enjoys regularly banging on Quaker
State and abhors the idea of using anything by Fram... We happen to use
Castrol. We still haven't settled on oil filter yet, we usually use
Purolator, Motorcraft and yes we used to use Fram.

Also, our little buddy down the way likes to bang Autolite plugs. Has
anyone ever had problems with this plug???

Gerald & Lisa
'77 F-150 Ranger Flareside (351M .060 and Proud of It)

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

Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 09:33:50 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Shocks for 94 Ranger
Message-ID:

On Sun, 04 May 1997 18:54:58 -0500 Gardner writes:
>I am looking for recommendations on shocks for my truck. I waas
>looking
>at something like the edelbrock performance IAS or sensatrak by
>monroe.
>I not sure if edelbrock makes shocks for this application, if you do
>please let me know! Thanks in advance. Keep of the good work Ken


I just replaced my stock shocks with the Sensatraks, and they work great.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ 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)....

---

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.