Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:31:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #98
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/98
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:

Re: [Daver ]
Crack in da head? ["Alexander M. Siu"
Re: KOEO/KOER code check [Daver ]
Re: RE: ["Harry Jennings"
Re: 1955 Ford f-500 [Dan Wentz ]
PCV ["Jim '73 F 100 302"
Re: PCV ["Harry Jennings"
checking codes ["Erik J. O'Daniel"
RE:5000 engines for sale ["Erik J. O'Daniel"
F-100 Build Sheets [Barry Price
Re: Axle Tag Numbers [Kevin Lindstedt
Re: F-100 Build Sheets [Ken Payne ]
Re: [silent.bob juno.com ]
RE: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question [William Sabers
Re: PCV [William Sabers

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: Tue, 06 May 1997 23:17:40 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re:
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> What BS and rigging? The duraspark requires nothing but a stock coil and a
> hot wire.

Ok it's a signaling device. No biggy. I had the points setup first
then switched to the duraspark w/ box. After I had problems with the
duraspark I went to the Mallory. I'm a little bias toward Mallory they
have always been there to help me and the number of components they
offer are stagering. It makes scence that The duraspark would work
without the box I simply didn't mess with it.

My problems with the stock ignition was the rotor shaft and main shaft
seems every time I bought one (rebuilt) the shaft the rotor sets on had
side play which cut back on performance and accurace; also, remember I
run 16 to 18 BTDC at startup and 36 to 38 BTDC full advance and Mallorry
provides a curve kit that allows me to control to with in (proven with a
timing light and Tach over the last 6 years) 50 RPM +/- when the engine
will see the full advance and will even allow me to setup a flat spot in
the advance.

Sorry Steve didn't intend to be pushy I tend to get that way when
supporting something I believe in.

> Sure the mallory is a nice distributor, but the duraspark setup is accurate,
> reliable,
> *cheap*, and doesn't require much effort to install.
> So why not?
> I stood in line longer at Stupid Shops just trying to get a price for a FE
> mallory distributor than it took to actually install my setup... )-:
>

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 00:30:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Alexander M. Siu"
To: Ford List
Subject: Crack in da head?
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I want to see if anyone had a similar problem on their 7.3 diesel. I have
a 90 F450 Rollback, that seems to belch up two gallons of coolant every
morning. after it warms up, the coolant will level off stay at the same
level all day. I can use the truck for hours after that. Highway or city
towing. Ideling for long period of time.

It is not the Thermostat, since I have replaced it, it is not a
restriction in the raditor, since I have also replaced it. the water pump
is only 6mo old, and the engine was rebuilt last year. I am clueless at
this point. The truck has plenty of power, with its Banks Turbo, it
really hauls! Someone had suggested a hairline crack in the head or block
that would close up after the engine warms up. Too bad I haven't been
able to find the exhaust leak detecting dye for the raditor.

Help1 before I go crazy.


My other procession

87 Mustang GT Conv.
90 Chevy Caprice, Police
93 SHO
87+ Lotus Esprit Turbo (May be sometime this year)

-=ALEX Siu=-

ASIU UBMail.UBalt.EDU

VOICE: (410)828-0273

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

Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 23:46:20 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: KOEO/KOER code check
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Strauss wrote:
>
> >Is there some other device in the fuel system that could be causing low =
> >pressure, boosters maybe. My truck has a 155" wheel base. Lots of =
> >distance for a small electric pump.
> >

John hopfully you will not mind me putting My 2 cents worth in. My
fatherinlaw had a 302 in a extended cab 155" wheel base and we had
problems with it. Seems the biggest problem area on his truck was the
metering block for his dual tanks (single tank trucks have these also
but they are gutless). This block contains spring loaded valves that
are pushed open by the tank pump (aka the pump that is in the fuel tank)
when you flip the switch to change tanks one tank pump is turned off as
the other is turned on. As the tank pump pushes it's valve open it also
opens the respective return valve. This blockalso has a small filter in
it the bottom spins off and it's a $^$^ to seal back up. The
fatherinlaw had problems with the valves sticking and causing pressure
problems. The block (if you have one) is in the inside of the frame
rail drivers side about mid cab. There is also a cannister filter that
causes simular problems (if your Truck is so equipt) on the suction side
of the injection pump.

Hope this helps. There are several other little problems with this
system we worked out if I can be of assistance gime a yell.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 21:55:20 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: RE:
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Tue May 6 21:12:35 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id AAA10478; Wed,
7 May 1997 00:09:06 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Message-ID:
>Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 23:17:40 -0500
>From: Daver
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Subject: Re:
>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
>
>> What BS and rigging? The duraspark requires nothing but a stock coil and a
>> hot wire.
>
>Ok it's a signaling device. No biggy. I had the points setup first
>then switched to the duraspark w/ box. After I had problems with the
>duraspark I went to the Mallory. I'm a little bias toward Mallory they
>have always been there to help me and the number of components they
>offer are stagering. It makes scence that The duraspark would work
>without the box I simply didn't mess with it.
>
>My problems with the stock ignition was the rotor shaft and main shaft
>seems every time I bought one (rebuilt) the shaft the rotor sets on had
>side play which cut back on performance and accurace; also, remember I
>run 16 to 18 BTDC at startup and 36 to 38 BTDC full advance and Mallorry
>provides a curve kit that allows me to control to with in (proven with a
>timing light and Tach over the last 6 years) 50 RPM +/- when the engine
>will see the full advance and will even allow me to setup a flat spot in
>the advance.
>
>Sorry Steve didn't intend to be pushy I tend to get that way when
>supporting something I believe in.
>

Jacobs is another GREAT ignition. It will increase power and mileage alot. They
say if you do not like it you get your money back. I ran it ao my '71 F-100
shortbed w/ a 351SVO/AOD and I love it. This engine has never been on a dyno but
I would guess it has around 500HP (it has GT40 fuel injection setup with a
Vortec supercharger, though I only run 4 pound of boost). I am afraid to say
what kind of mileage I get. Somebody might hunt me down. (:

Harry
>> Sure the mallory is a nice distributor, but the duraspark setup is accurate,
>> reliable,
>> *cheap*, and doesn't require much effort to install.
>> So why not?
>> I stood in line longer at Stupid Shops just trying to get a price for a FE
>> mallory distributor than it took to actually install my setup... )-:
>>
>
>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: Tue, 06 May 1997 21:57:22 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 1955 Ford f-500
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I have a 1955 F-500. The grill looks like a 53.

>It's got a flathead in it. Can these be built to be reliable for say =
>50,000 miles or so.=20
>
Are you absolutely sure is isn't actually a 53? The grilles on the 53's
and 55's are very different, both on the F100's and the larger models. The
thing that really makes me wonder is the flathead. If it's a 55 it
wouldn't have a flathead, but if it's a 53 it would (52 was the last year
for the flathead). Grilles can be changed, and so can engines, but I
suspect you've got a 53.

In response to the other question, yes a flathead can run over 50,000
miles--just keep an eye on the temp gauge!

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 22:34:40 -0700
From: "Jim '73 F 100 302"
To: "Ford Trucks"
Subject: PCV
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I was out working on the Yamaha. I just ride street now but
10 years ago it was set up for speed. rejet the carbs, port
an polish, Kerker Header and K&N air filters. The power it
put out is incredible for a shaftdriven motorcycle, it's the
only one I know of that can lift the front wheel hitting
3rd. As a matter of fact shaftdrive motorcycles normally
can't do wheelstands. It was 10 years ago I set this bike up
and to tell you the truth I've forgotten some of the
performance work I did to it one just faced me! My crank
case vent filter. K&N filters have no place to put a PCV
connection. Stage 1 kit, jets, muffler, Street. Stage 2 kit,
jets, tuned exhaust, stock air box K&N filter, performance
street. I have Stage 3 kit, jets. equal length headers, 4
K&N air filters and a crankcase vent filter.
I grabbed my Summit, Brothers, motorsport and Edelbrock
catalogs and went through each page. Every high performance
product not for street use lacked PCV and EGR! in a panic I
grab a couple Hot Rod rages and in the Feb '95 issue on page
51 it says in the mid '70s factories began introducing
measured amounts of exhaust gas into the intake manifold at
part throttle to reduce cylinder temperatures in order to
minimize the formation of oxides of nitrogen emissions. this
works, but it can also reduce performance.
I don't want to fuel the flames but I also don't want to
tell someone their wrong if I'm not sure what is right! I'm
not in favor of disabling emission controls even if I do
increase performance. Reason #1 it's a crime that can put me
in the can, First day it would be rape, third day a date :)
Reason #2 it works! As a kid in California and living 40
miles from the mountains they could only be seen a couple
weeks out of the year, now I can see there's mountain all
the way around us. No joke I didn't know as a kid I lived in
a valley!
The one redeeming factor, it was to reduce cylinder temp.
for less emissions! So Harry you were wrong about the
thermostat and you better give it up or I'll tell everyone
your dream car is a Vaga :) It's a joke! He never said that.
Can we discuses this calmly? I started it with Harry, I'm
sorry Bro. looks like I was off base. I admit I didn't have
all my ducks in a row, and I never met to piss so many
people off! This Club means a lot to me, and anyone that
follows other list knows this is the best there is! Sorry
everyone that I have offended!




Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
'73 Ford F100 (302 2bbl C4 Auto Ford 9" 3.25
. Daily
driver)
'83 Yamaha XJ900RK (Best Gift of my life! From my best
friends! RSCL)
'77 Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 22:54:50 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: PCV
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

>
> I was out working on the Yamaha. I just ride street now but
>10 years ago it was set up for speed. rejet the carbs, port
>an polish, Kerker Header and K&N air filters. The power it
>put out is incredible for a shaftdriven motorcycle, it's the
>only one I know of that can lift the front wheel hitting
>3rd. As a matter of fact shaftdrive motorcycles normally
>can't do wheelstands. It was 10 years ago I set this bike up
>and to tell you the truth I've forgotten some of the
>performance work I did to it one just faced me! My crank
>case vent filter. K&N filters have no place to put a PCV
>connection. Stage 1 kit, jets, muffler, Street. Stage 2 kit,
>jets, tuned exhaust, stock air box K&N filter, performance
>street. I have Stage 3 kit, jets. equal length headers, 4
>K&N air filters and a crankcase vent filter.
> I grabbed my Summit, Brothers, motorsport and Edelbrock
>catalogs and went through each page. Every high performance
>product not for street use lacked PCV and EGR! in a panic I
>grab a couple Hot Rod rages and in the Feb '95 issue on page
>51 it says in the mid '70s factories began introducing
>measured amounts of exhaust gas into the intake manifold at
>part throttle to reduce cylinder temperatures in order to
>minimize the formation of oxides of nitrogen emissions. this
>works, but it can also reduce performance.
>
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

I to am sorry for offending anyone!!!

It was that I just couldn't get anyone to listen to what I was tring to say.

I don't want to fuel the flames but I also don't want to
>tell someone their wrong if I'm not sure what is right! I'm
>not in favor of disabling emission controls even if I do
>increase performance. Reason #1 it's a crime that can put me
>in the can, First day it would be rape, third day a date :)
>Reason #2 it works! As a kid in California and living 40
>miles from the mountains they could only be seen a couple
>weeks out of the year, now I can see there's mountain all
>the way around us. No joke I didn't know as a kid I lived in
>a valley!
> The one redeeming factor, it was to reduce cylinder temp.
>for less emissions!

OK, you might have me there. I will change the thermostat and let you now how it
does.

So Harry you were wrong about the
>thermostat and you better give it up or I'll tell everyone
>your dream car is a Vaga :) It's a joke!

My dream car(truck) is almost finished. It is a '71 F-100 shorbed. Has a 351SVO,
TCI built AOD, GT40 fuel injection, Vortec supercharger, dry sump oiling system,
Mustang II IFS, and the engine/trans is set lower and back farther. I am looking
for an IRS, any ideas (a 'Vette IRS is strong and *cheap* when compared to
others, but no way in Hell a Chevy part is going into my Ford -- I am NOT
anti-Chevy, just don't like mixing brands).

Later, :0)

Harry

He never said that.
> Can we discuses this calmly? I started it with Harry, I'm
>sorry Bro. looks like I was off base. I admit I didn't have
>all my ducks in a row, and I never met to piss so many
>people off! This Club means a lot to me, and anyone that
>follows other list knows this is the best there is! Sorry
>everyone that I have offended!
>
>
>
>
>Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
>'73 Ford F100 (302 2bbl C4 Auto Ford 9" 3.25
. Daily
>driver)
>'83 Yamaha XJ900RK (Best Gift of my life! From my best
>friends! RSCL)
> '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: Wed, 7 May 1997 04:54:52 +0000
From: "Erik J. O'Daniel"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: checking codes
Message-ID:

>You can do this yourself with nothing more than a jumper wire. Call
>Classic Motorbooks at 800.826.6600 and order "How to Tune and Modify Ford
>Fuel Injection" by Ben Watson for $19.95 which will explain how to get the
>codes and what they mean. Or you can probably pick it up at a local
>bookstore as well. This book will pay for itself in one use as opposed to
>paying a shop to do it for you.

You might also check the local parts store. I bought a code checker
from one for $30 or $40 bucks. I had previously read in a Mitchell
manual about how to check the codes in our 84Bronco II with a voltage
meter, but it didn't seem to work in reality. Of course, once I got
this code checker and saw how it worked the voltage meter method made
complete sense. The checker also comes with a book detailing what
the codes mean and a small but informative section on the basics of
vehicle computer systems. (It was behind the counter at our parts
store.)

Mitchell manuals (probably avaiable at your nearest library if it is
of any size) will contain specific tests to run to isolate the exact
problem. They get pretty detailed, but they'll allow you to isolate
exact components that may be faulty.

Ours works on Ford/Lincoln/Mercury models 81 & newer with EEC-IV or
MCU systems. It works for me. Amaze your friends with your ability
to check their codes!

Erik O'Daniel

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

Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 05:04:39 +0000
From: "Erik J. O'Daniel"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: RE:5000 engines for sale
Message-ID:

>Warranty replacement engines. Low mileage.

Does this indicate that these engines were yanked because they have
some fatal flaw?

Our 84 Bronco II's 2.8L is weak and probably close to dying. Anyone
want to tell me why getting one of these might be a bad idea? Anyone
know if they'd fit and bolt-up to the tranny in the Bronco II?

Never had to replace an entire engine before.

Erik O'Daniel
Boise, Idaho

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

Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 07:13:37 -0700
From: Barry Price
To: "fordtrucks lofcom.com"
Subject: F-100 Build Sheets
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Where to I send my information to to obtain a build sheet for my 1965
F-100?

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

Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 07:20:21 -0500
From: Kevin Lindstedt
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Axle Tag Numbers
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:44 PM 5/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Kevin,
> The "WDM-BR" is the axle model number. (I think it indicates the size
> of the pinion bearing, number of splines, and the
> number of differential pinion gears (2 or 4).
>
> The "86B" is the manufacture date (Year, Month, Week)
>
> The 2.75 is the gear ratio for a conventional diff. (If
> it was a traction-lok it would be 2L75)
>
> The "9" is the ring gear size in inches (as someone
> previously posted.)
>
> The "385B" is coding used by the specific plant that
> produced the axle.
>
>Hope that is of some help.
>
>Jim in Cnetral NY
>'79 F-150 (302!) Ranger/XLT/Lariet
>'92 Topaz (3.0l)
>
Thanks Jim! You are truly the Ford Truck "Master" - Good answers on
everything from carbs to rear axles. Thanks for your help.

Thanks to Jim Strigas for his input also.

Kevin

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

Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 09:22:57 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: F-100 Build Sheets
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:13 AM 5/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Where to I send my information to to obtain a build sheet for my 1965
>F-100?
>

Ford only supplies build sheets from 1967 through 1986. After 86
you can get a dealer window sticker. Before 67 you're SOL other
than what the VIN tells you.

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

Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 09:32:04 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Cc: Greg-Connie worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re:
Message-ID:

On Tue, 6 May 1997 14:27:27 +0000 Greg Hendricks
writes:
>I have a 97 Ranger 4x4 Supercab that came with the Premium stereo in
>it. It
>has CD controls but not the 6 disc changer. Does anyone know if an
>aftermarket CD-changer would be compatible with the factory stereo? I
>have
>priced the Ford Changer and it costs $460 plus $120 for wiring harness
>plus
>labor. Or maybe does someone know where I could find a used Ford
>Changer(junkyard possibly)? Any info would be much appreciated.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Greg Hendricks


I put a Sony 10 disk CD-Changer installed with the Stock stereo in it.
Sounds great. I bought it a Mobil One Audio for $490 installed.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ 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, 7 May 1997 08:40:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: William Sabers
To: "'INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: RE: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question...
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Solvent through a motor..!!!!
Am I a little ignorant or would that "freak-out" the bearings and
all other friction points on the engine on the first start!!????
I think I am scared....
Wsabers
78 Bronco
69 Mach I


On 5 May 1997, DC Beatty wrote:

> FYI --if flushing out sludge is the object here:
>
> A buddy of mine works at the local Ford dealer as a wrench and he says they have
> a machine that, when one hose is hooked to the oil filter outlet and another
> hose is hooked to the drain plug hole, flushes solvent through the motor.
> Anybody ever heard of an item like this? I don't think he'd lie.
>
> I don't know if the procedure works well or not, but I guess it's an option. I
> hear the only thorough way to get rid of sludge is tear down/boil/rebuild.
>
> I may stop by to check this machine out one day. I'll let any interested parties
> know.
>
> DC Beatty
> 1967 F-100 352
> 1974 Maverick 302
> ----------
> From: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 1997 2:36 PM
> To: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Subject: Re: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question...
>
> Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by
> arl-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
> id QAA23816; Mon, 5 May 1997 16:38:22 -0400
> Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id QAA09871; Mon,
> 5 May 1997 16:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
> fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
> Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:36:50 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Jason K. Schechner"
> To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Subject: Re: Synthetic (Mobil 1) oil question...
> In-Reply-To:
> Message-ID:
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 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 wouldn't. There are engine flushing compoounds you can add to
> your oil to help clean it out and, from what I've heard, switching back
> and forth between standard and synthetic oil is not a good idea. In fact,
> you could even run a quart of ATF instead of oil for a few hundred miles -
> should help clean things out nicely.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Mon, 5 May 1997 PDupont105 aol.com wrote:
>
> > 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)
> >
>
> -Jason
> 79 Bronco (blue)
> 79 Bronco (green)
> 95 Mustang GT - hers
> 95 Mustang GT - his
>
> -----
> Jason K. Schechner - Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:11:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: William Sabers
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: PCV
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

For those of you who do not want to buy a new PCV valve & line, I found
running good ole carb cleaner though the PCV and the line can restore some
of that "lost Power" or
"lost mileage" or whatever.....
Wsabers
78 Bronco
69 Mach I
>
> I understand very well what a PCV valve does and how it does it. I also know
> that the PCV valve dumps these gases into the carb. I thought to myself "this
> must lower power". I also thought that removing the PCV valve would not hurt the
> ventalation since the vacuum does VERY little anyway. I would just leave the
> vents open and give it a try. My engine in not worn out (1200mi when I did it)
> and it has not caused any oil leaks (80,000mi now).
>
> I fully understand everyones pionts, but one thing I do not understand. How can
> someone sit there and say "That just will not work. I have never done it, or
> seen it done, but it will not work."
>
> I have done it and it works. Yes the EPA my track me down, but THAT WAS NOT THE
> POINT. The point was that one could disconnect the PCV valve (WITH HARM) and
> gain power and mileage (say, in a 'off-road-only' application)!!!!
>
> I change my oil evry 4000mi and my truck still smokes Z-28's (even after....

---

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.