From: fordtrucks-digest-request
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 20:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request using -f
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


Message distributed via
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
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
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
documented proof. I for one appreciate your input! Thank

Jim Strigas jstrigas
'73 Ford F100 (302 2bbl C4 Auto Ford 9" 3.25. Daily
'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
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
> 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:
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....



Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 17:18:54 -0400
From: Ethan Vos
To: "'fordtrucks'"
Subject: RE: F-100 Build Sheets
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


------ =_NextPart_000_01BC5B0A.C6DCF020--


Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 17:23:56 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks
Subject: Re: F-100 Build Sheets
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
>> 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
Subject: vindication
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.



Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 15:27:20 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks
Subject: Re: Not Slick50, but the idea!
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
>in a liquid form can be baked into metal. This is a somewhat expensive and
>consuming process though. The makers realized the process required heat.
>the internal engine heat would bond the substance to the engine, they came =
>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=
>while another would not. I cannot see how it could cause any damage since t=
>"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
>little bit from their engine.
>By now you might be asking yourself "=D4f the stuff can be baked on then wh=
>there a compant that does it?" Well, there is and you can find them at
>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=
>valve springs.
>3)An anti-friction coation that can be applied to the cam, bearings, etc.
>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 =
>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.
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.


Primerica Financial Services > Yesterday is a cancelled check,
Michael D. Waak
"The Crusaders" > Today is cash, USE IT WISELY!!


Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 18:31:55 -0500 (EST)
To: fordtrucks
Subject: Re: F150 Hesitation ??
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

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!
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."
Subject: 454 in an Econoline?????
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
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):


Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 19:09:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: hjennings, fordtrucks
Subject: vindication
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, hjennings
Subject: vindication
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
>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 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.

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.