|
|
Return-Path: From: fordtrucks-digest-request Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 20:22:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #100 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/100 To: fordtrucks-digest Reply-To: fordtrucks ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: Brake light ["Jim '73 F 100 302" Re: F-100 Build Sheets [Barry Price Re: [William Sabers RE: F-100 Build Sheets [Ethan Vos ] Re: F-100 Build Sheets [Ken Payne ] vindication [John Strauss Re: Not Slick50, but the idea! [Michael & Linda Waak Re: F150 Hesitation ?? [JIM HURD ] Re: Not Slick50, but the idea! ["Jason K. Schechner" ] 454 in an Econoline????? ["James C. Thorne, P.E." Ken Payne [ ] vindication [John Strauss vindication [John Strauss Apologies to Harry Jennings [John Strauss 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 Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne ____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:20:17 -0700 From: "Jim '73 F 100 302" To: "Ford Trucks" Subject: Brake light Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree with the others on an intermittent brake light can be low brake fluid. Before adding Fluid keep in mind that the brake system is a closed system, you don't loose brake fluid operating the brakes! If your fluid is low, it may be time for new brakes. Doing your own brakes is simple and vary cost effective! Don't cut corners or use improper replacement parts. Turning the drums and rotors in my opinion is not necessary if the brake peddle doesn't pulsate (indicating one is deformed) or visible scoring isn't present. There are other opinions to this, the decision is yours! If you want to add brake fluid, clean around the master cylinder before removing the cover. Contaminants entering the brake system is a bad thing, a vary bad thing (Police Academy, one of my favorite movies). Jim Hurd Your $.02 is money in the bank to me. Not only are your opinions welcome, I want to hear what you have to say! Your advise is right on, and on most if not all occasions back with documented proof. I for one appreciate your input! Thank you! Jim Strigas jstrigas '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: Wed, 07 May 1997 17:13:15 -0700 From: Barry Price To: fordtrucks Subject: Re: F-100 Build Sheets Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ken Payne wrote: > > 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. > > ____________________________________________________________________ > 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 > Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne Where can I find information on my 1965 F-100 VIN numbers? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:15:57 -0500 (CDT) From: William Sabers To: Daver cc: fordtrucks Subject: Re: Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII What do you think about MSD systems?????? I have not tried too many of the competion, Mallory (in 1986) and I was not impressed as I was in 1994 with an MSD system.... Wsabers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 17:18:54 -0400 From: Ethan Vos To: "'fordtrucks Subject: RE: F-100 Build Sheets Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC5B0A.C6DCF020" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5B0A.C6DCF020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How can one decipher a 1953-55 VIN? ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5B0A.C6DCF020 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgoVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAsAEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9m Y29tLmNvbQBTTVRQAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AAzABAAAAFgAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEw AQAAABgAAAAnZm9yZHRydWNrc0Bsb2Zjb20uY29tJwACAQswAQAAABsAAABTTVRQOkZPUkRUUlVD S1NATE9GQ09NLkNPTQAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFgAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9m Y29tLmNvbQAAAAIB918BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NA bG9mY29tLmNvbQBTTVRQAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAA AgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAqldAQSAAQAXAAAAUkU6IEYtMTAwIEJ1aWxkIFNoZWV0cwCRBgEFgAMA DgAAAM0HBQAHABEAEgA2AAMAPAEBIIADAA4AAADNBwUABwARABIAEAADABYBAQmAAQAhAAAANzY1 OTNCNTZGREM2RDAxMUIyQzcwMDgwQzgzMkJCMjgAGAcBA5AGABQHAAAhAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMA AAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AIBsV0QsW7wBHgBwAAEAAAAX AAAAUkU6IEYtMTAwIEJ1aWxkIFNoZWV0cwAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbxbLEPyVjtZd8b9EdCyxwCA yDK7KAAAHgAeDAEAAAADAAAATVMAAB4AHwwBAAAAEwAAAFdpbmRvd3MvQWRtaW4vRVZvcwAAAwAG EFvmg5MDAAcQHQAAAB4ACBABAAAAHgAAAEhPV0NBTk9ORURFQ0lQSEVSQTE5NTMtNTVWSU4/AAAA AgEJEAEAAABGBAAAQgQAAJgKAABMWkZ1js9zJgMACgByY3BnMTI1cjIMYGMxAzABBwtgbpEOEDAz Mw8WZmUPkk8B9wKkA2MCAGNoCsBzhGV0AtFwcnEyAACSKgqhbm8SUCAwAdCFAdA2D6AwNTA0FCHz AdAUEDR9B20CgwBQA9T7Ef8TC2IT4RRQE7IY9BTQrwcTAoACkQjmOwlvMBrf+mUOMDUcCh0hHN8d 6Rv0/x4SHH8gTyANH48dvxwPEGD8Mjgl2ibxJq8nuRv0J+K/Jk8qHyndKV8njytUOQ5QHy6kMAEo IzAAAoJzdHnqbAeQaAngdAAAE1AD8FBkY3RsCrFcMlhhmGRqdTFwBRBnaAVCOxYyDAFjCcAyYAMw c258ZXgXMAewBbAAwAJzc7EAUHNiMhRQMWBhE/D0XGsJ4HALkDI/MqMIYOsykAuAZTGgdjlgAUAz m78MMDRkKAA3QASgC4BnJ/HpNOZiYRcQZAIgNaA1Rucx0DOQO5EgMTEzDlA2n/83rzi/AFE5/ACg NG48fz2G/zEkD8A+jz+fQK8OUDnvQw/bRB89szMCghMQYzZgS6GTM5A9sHRpOZAgRAEQqGF1bAVA UArAYQnA4GFwaCBGAiE2JCVA6GZpLQ+QOAFAOTBQM+tHDzKjYgsgcglQUlIWoNlSUnc0JUEXAHAB 0E1yfzO/Sp9Lpk/QTpAFEAIwLUNPMANhOiBUb1ewUyh1YmoFkHRXsERh6HRlOjYkNk//UQ9SH/9T L1Q5McA9ow4hS6E6tg5Qm1VvVn5SOYEXASBIPZH7BJA2JDdZb1p/W49cnTkPL12/D5BpcAjQYgqw dDj/SfoPVEYQX79gxmoAYdALULx5L09AXLALEWJFczYk/ygAYz9kT2VfXK9UT2tfbG/vbXVX0ld0 WKk5b78zPwMwHWmzOXOfdK96oERvY/51B4ACMAXQTwAaAXjSeDD3eHBxUQGAblgwAGAJ8E2g730A AgE14F5SZQDwfQAxgJJwHoBcdgiQd2sLgP5ka0CAogTwB0AQYQFADgDvcSI9goIFAhBvBUIXIRLy DVjAbQtRWMAgQzpc6lxXAG9O4W1PMAMQB5BNhLBNDeADYHNvAYAgrk8BIA3gf/BchmZFAMD1AxAu S3B0fdAXEHhwNSHtZ3J4AUB/AW4x0BrwiAQ9TjRjAyAS8wCABZBsdv9BoUbQDnA14IqSAZAAIIsi /4DxfUEBwYqRFuAPcAAARtDzDNABkCAuGhKKiA5Qi0L/TnB4wIu/jM+N3w/ARtAFgbePf5CPkZ9s a0BG0GyPP/uT/5UFKY4MJUCS35e/lPT4YiAoApGY34rTWVCWj/+bT5xfnW+LAGMQnrKLj6Af/6Ev jgwoAJ6/pD+lT6ZfiwD/eACjP6jPqd+q5Ar5AzB4L9N5P3rNe0iwkCCBkAOg3wIgE4AFgQUgiTEg lVAv8Ag1My0eoCBWSU4WPwqFGhAAtnAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAADAIAQ/////0AABzBAewMu LFu8AUAACDBAewMuLFu8AQsAAYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAAAwADgAggBgAA AAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAtw0AAB4A JoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADguMAADACeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAMIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAxgAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADADOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4AQoAI IAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAEOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBEgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAA AB4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AABu3g== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5B0A.C6DCF020-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 17:23:56 -0400 From: Ken Payne To: fordtrucks Subject: Re: F-100 Build Sheets Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:13 PM 5/7/97 -0700, you wrote: >Ken Payne wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> ____________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne > >Where can I find information on my 1965 F-100 VIN numbers? > Post the numbers on the side of the driver's door on a tag. We (the list collectively) can decode them for you. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:45:55 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: FORDTRUCKS Subject: vindication Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >"Every high performance product not for street use lacked PCV and EGR!" Also >read his quote from Hot Rod. > >And you guys wonder why I get so upset sometimes!!!!!!!! >I think God himself could tell you something and you would argue!? > >As a matter of fact I am vindicated now. Thank you for asking. > Yeah, I read the post and the part you are talking about really doesn't mean anything. What product, pray tell, is going to "lack" PCV? This is not a built in thing that requires any special fittings save the hole in the valve cover. His desription of introduction of exhaust emissions into the induction system to lower temps for NOx control and the part about it lowering performance is about EGR, not PCV. EGR, on the other hand, does require special plumbing in the intake manifold. There are EGR and non-EGR intakes, but there is no such thing as a "non-PCV" manifold. Harry, you will not find a post from me telling you that your PCV disconnect doesn't work. It's your truck and if it works or even if you just think it works, then fine. But you have to admit you are finding little support for your view here. If all we wanna do is argue, how come you are the only one coming under fire to this extent? Surely you cannot blame me (and others) for having a great deal of skepticism at some of your claims. I am on a Bronco mailing list where there are >10 folks with 351Ms and not one of them are within 5 MPG of your claims. NOBODY on this list favors Split Fire plugs. Why do YOU have the audacity to think that, with this PCV thing, you've discovered some magic power/MPG trick that Ford, GM, and all the others with their millions and millions of R&D dollars couldn't find? Have you tried reattaching your PCV, leaving everything else alone, to see if it makes any difference? Just how scientific are your methods? How repeatable? If I go and pull the PCV from my truck and it DOESN'T work, then what? I do find it odd that you have endorsed, sometimes with MPG claims, just about every heavily advertised doohickey that I have already seen debunked or tried myself with poor results. Examples: Slick 50 - tried it, it made my motor use oil immediately. Jacobs electronics - tried it, didn't do a thing for MPG or power, sent it back. Split Fire plugs - haven't tried them because, until you, I had never even heard of anyone, except in their adds, who liked them. I'm not trying to bash you, but like some others, I take the information exchange in this list very seriously and I don't want someone who is less knowledgeable to go and do something I know is wrong. I have worked in the industry as a technician and have a degree in Automotive Technology from TSTI so I am not just a shadetree wrench bender. I do have *some* degree of expertise in this regard. Having said that, let me say this: If I were you, and I was as sure of my claims as you are, I would do some experiments with some other vehicles and get a feel for just what sort of improvements can be had with this modification. I mean some hard numbers. Next, I would try to work up a way to vent the crankcase gasses somewhere besides into the atmosphere where they can be burned or trapped or whatever without putting them back into the motor. Canister? Exhaust system? Something like that. Then I would be looking to patent this as a product to sell to others. If this really works for others as it has you, then you might just have a little gold mine on your hands. That's my spiel. Should you decide to undertake this, then I do sincerely wish you good luck and hope to hear your results. John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 15:27:20 -0800 From: Michael & Linda Waak To: fordtrucks Subject: Re: Not Slick50, but the idea! Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Please read ALL of this befors you jump all over me! > >First of all let me explain the idea behind Slick50. There is a substance >that >in a liquid form can be baked into metal. This is a somewhat expensive and >time >consuming process though. The makers realized the process required heat. >Hoping >the internal engine heat would bond the substance to the engine, they came = up >with Slick50. I am not saying it does or doesn't work, just stating the >idea. It >would seem possible to me that one engine could experience gains from Slick= 50 >while another would not. I cannot see how it could cause any damage since t= he >"suspended particles" dissolve when heated. > >I have also heard people say "Slick50 is for lazy people". This may be >true if >the person is trying to fix a problem, but many people like me just want >every >little bit from their engine. > >By now you might be asking yourself "=D4f the stuff can be baked on then wh= y >isn't >there a compant that does it?" Well, there is and you can find them at >www.performancecoatings.com > >They have 3 different typed of coatings: >1)A thermal barrier that can be applied to the intake, headers, piston >tops, and >other parts. >2)An oil retaining coating that makes oil "=C1lin" to it. This is used on t= he >valve springs. >3)An anti-friction coation that can be applied to the cam, bearings, etc. >This >is the one that Slick50 is based on. > >I have two Ford trucks: One with a 351M which I ran Slick50 in. I didn't >get any >gains from it, but have heard many people say they did. My other truck has = a >351SVO. This engine is a very High performance/High tech build-up. It has >two of >the three coatings (#1 and #3) I mentioned above. > >I don't mean to start a war about Slick50, I just want people to >understand why >some people use it. > >Harry. > My God! Harry wrote somthing that, for a change, I didn't throw up my hands and want to scream B.S. My point on Slick is that if you feel good about it, and feel that it dosn't hurt, use it. =46or those of you who don't like it, don't use it. But don't tell me I'm stupid because I do. Now unhooking your PCV system is another story. M Primerica Financial Services > Yesterday is a cancelled check, Michael D. Waak "The Crusaders" > Today is cash, USE IT WISELY!! mikewaak ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 18:31:55 -0500 (EST) From: JIM HURD To: fordtrucks Subject: Re: F150 Hesitation ?? Message-id: Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Phil, Good job! Let me look up your codes (from my arm chair!). Okay, you already know that the 111 says you passed the self-test with flying colors. Next, the "continuous memory" codes, meaning that at some prior time the EEC-IV saw this problem and stored the code for you: 327 = PFE/DPFE circut below minimum. (The PFE is a Pressure Feedback Egr sensor that measures the exhaust gas pressure in the EGR system.) Do you have a modified exhaust system, by chance? Or maybe the sensor is "hooped"? 542 = Fuel pump secondary circuit failure. (Bet this is your hesitation.) 634 = MLP (Manual Lever Position) sensor volatage out of self-test range on E40D. Now for the KOER tests: during the dynamic response test you have a: 129 = Insufficient MAF (Mass Air Flow) change during dynamic response test. (You have to snap the throttle to WOT when you get the "goose" code. More on that in a later code.) The reason the 129 went away on your next test is you probably gossed it a little harder. 167 = Insufficient TP (Throttle Position) change during DRT (Dynamic Response Test). You need to go to full throttle so that the EEC-IV can verify the limits of the TPS (Throttle Position Sensor) voltage. 225 = Knock not sensed during DRT. You need to "snap" the throttle to WOT. The EEC-IV wants the engine to "ping" so that it can check out the knock sensor circuit (but you probably won't be able to hear the ping with just your ear.) 632 = OverDrive cancel switch (OCS) not changing state (E4OD). I need some help here. I don't have an E4OD tranny. Do you? Is it shifting into OD properly, and shifting out of OD okay? To clear the continuous memory codes, disconnect the battery for about 10 minutes........Good Luck. Jim in Central NY '79 F-150 (302!) '92 Topaz (3.0l) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 18:54:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jason K. Schechner" To: fordtrucks Subject: Re: Not Slick50, but the idea! Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Yes, it's *possible* for the *idea* of Slick 50 to work, but the simple fact is that the product DOES NOT. They claim that their product coats the inside of the egine with PTFE (the chemical name for DuPont's famous Teflon. More on that in a sec) to reduce friction. Anyone ever taken steel wool to a Teflon-coated pan? What happens? Right, the Teflon comes off immediately (and subsequently your wife beats you over the head with that pan for ruining it. Those things ain't cheap! :-)) Now think about the fact that you have several rings scraping your piston walls at a time. Think the stuff is going to stick? Not only that, but industrially the process to apply Teflon to steel takes 14-17 distinct steps. Being a chemist by training the thought of splashing PTFE on the cylinder walls and expecting it to stick is good for a few laughs. Now, back to DuPont. When Slick50 first wanted to use PTFE DuPont wouldn't sell them the PTFE powder because they (DuPont) didn't believe it would work and the only reason they do sell it is because they were ordered to in court. Ever wonder why Slick50's bottles say "With PTFE" not "With Teflon"? That's why. Any of those products that say "Teflon" on the package are probably either being sued by DuPont or will be soon. Another point: disolved PTFE expands radically when heated, like in your oil passageways. It's more likely to clog those than it is to coat anything and protect it. In short, yes it's possible for the idea of Slick50 to work, but the product itself is pure snake oil. Change your oil every 3-5k and if you want extra protection use Synthetic oil and your engine should last you a very long time. -Jason rogue chemist on the loose. ----- Jason K. Schechner - Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 18:19:27 -0500 From: "James C. Thorne, P.E." To: FORDTRUCKS Subject: 454 in an Econoline????? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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!!! Well, not always. The 454 SB in my Mustang is very much a FORD. Now to keep this message on topic, the 454SB makes more torque than the 7.3l turbodiesel in my 93 F350. I have often thought it would make an interesting 4x4 motor. James Thorne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 19:45:22 -0400 From: Ken Payne To: fordtrucks Subject: Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've stayed on the sidelines about this but I've now received several complaints. I am not going to play God and "kick anyone off" - I am simply going to make a few suggestions. This message is directed at no one in particular. This is info comes from an Internet FAQ, please read it: ----------------------------------------------------------------- What is a flame? A "flame" usually refers to any message or article that contains strong criticism, usually irrational or highly emotional. Avoid "flames", and if you do get "flamed", relax, calm down and decide if it's really worth "counter-flaming". Usually, it isn't worth it -- a complete waste of bandwidth and time; it also gets you perceived as a "flamer" by the large silent majority of readers, who will probably start _ignoring_ your articles. ----------------------------------------------------------------- And following are my suggestions.... As list admin, I'm asking folks to help maintain a constructive Ford truck discussion. I ask that you _not_ send comments to this email back to the list as we need to stay on topic. If you have questions or comments please send them directly (kpayne Our lists are intended as forums for open and free discussion amoung Ford truck enthusiasts. We need to try to remain on topic and avoid "me too" posts as they do not contribute to the discussion. More importantly, we all need to refrain from flammage. If you cannot "disagree in an agreeable manner" then please reframe from posting. If something really bothers you, wait and post after a few minutes. I have never regretted not posting but I have regretted posting something in haste. We can jump all over each other when we don't agree or put down other makes and models when someone is seeking answers but this accomplishes nothing. "Nuke GM!" is not what I'm referring too, but more along the lines of "you suck because you also drive a Pontiac" - I think we all know the difference between an amusing comment and flame bait. An on-going flame battle will only drive away members. Been there, done that. Time for us all to grow up - I count myself in this. This is the only way (IMHO) that we can provide a constructive list. If you are the target of a a flame, please either ignore it or respond only to the topical content and not the emotional. Climbing down off my pedestal.... -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: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:09:13 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: hjennings Subject: vindication Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >What about the hole in the carb.? Many High Performance carbs lack this inlet! > It's just a manifold vacuum port, for crying out loud. Pardon me for being pompous, but I can't see arguing this with someone who apparantly thinks there is something magic or special about a damn vacuum port. If this is the extent of your automotive knowledge, and I think it is, then I have little regard for your claims. Enjoy your 17MPG. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:09:15 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: fordtrucks Subject: vindication Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >You said that you are on a Bronco list, too. And that several people on that >list are not even coming within 5 mpg of what I said. Well, what I said was an >average of 17mpg (21 highway). This means those 4x4, low geared, heavy Bronco's >are only getting 12 mpg! Wow! > yeah, yeah, yeah, wak, wak, wak. If you think there is a great deal of diff between a '71 F100 and a '78 Bronco as far as weight and wind resitance goes, then you know about as much as I already figured you did. I'm bored with this thread..... 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 already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
|