perf-list-digest Friday, December 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 182



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >
Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >
Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition
Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >
Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
FTE Perf - Seasons Greetings
Re: FTE Perf - Re: bad tank sender
Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition
FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition (more)
RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.
RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 12:38:51 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

someone had mentioned the lightnening as the fist full size performance
truck. since it is not really a full size the shelby dakota does not
count, but as a comparison in performance my cousin has one (with less than
30,000miles on it) that he got new and with only a set of "9 inch cheaters"
was turning 60 ft times quicker than any of the mustangs at island raceway
that day. it was turning low 16, high 15's in the 1/4 but off the line it
was untouchable. the possible performance of trucks is amazing considering
the drawbacks such as wheelbase, weight, airodynamics, poor traction, etc.

i only ever see two trucks running in large numbers at the digs.
lightnings and dakotas. the lightning owners seem to like things like
superchargers, nitrous and high tech stuff. the dakota owners seem to toss
the origianl 318 and drop in a bigger small block or big block and use old
fashoined methods of horsepower creation like carbs and highly modified
intakes and nitrous.

just an interesting comparison.

sleddog


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:14:55 EST
From: WJeff43 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >

There is only one way around this, and that is if the manufacturers get
together and simply refuse to sell vehicles in California. There's very
little chance of this happening, but it would be a thing of beauty to watch.
I know many motorcycle companies have a "California" model because their
normal bikes are illegal in California. For them to make a separate model
just for Cal. tells me they must be selling a bunch of vehicles in that state.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 15:22:45 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

Sleddog wrote:
>
> someone had mentioned the lightnening as the fist full size performance
> truck. since it is not really a full size the shelby dakota does not
> count, but as a comparison in performance my cousin has one (with less than
> 30,000miles on it) that he got new and with only a set of "9 inch cheaters"
> was turning 60 ft times quicker than any of the mustangs at island raceway
> that day. it was turning low 16, high 15's in the 1/4 but off the line it
> was untouchable. the possible performance of trucks is amazing considering
> the drawbacks such as wheelbase, weight, airodynamics, poor traction, etc.
>
> i only ever see two trucks running in large numbers at the digs.
> lightnings and dakotas. the lightning owners seem to like things like
> superchargers, nitrous and high tech stuff. the dakota owners seem to toss
> the origianl 318 and drop in a bigger small block or big block and use old
> fashoined methods of horsepower creation like carbs and highly modified
> intakes and nitrous.
>
> just an interesting comparison.
>
> sleddog
>

Sleddog I ahve to jump in on this since I have owned a Lightning since
Feb of this year! It is nothing like you would imagine it to be. It is
quick enough to beat any dakota that has come my way, including the 5.9L
R/T out handles mustanggs and camaros and are relatively easy to modify
to go faster. Sure you can but a big block in any truck and go
fast...well maybe...except the 454 Super Slug... but try to make the
truck handle. I have done few mods to my Lightnings and it simply spanks
Mustangs and can kept up with the Z28s. Plus I could still do normal
truck activities(if I wanted)! Only mods I have are cap, rotor, plugs,
wires, advanced timing, and bassani x pipe and borla nas- truck exhaust!

I test drove a new 5.9R/T Dakota the other day....It is nothing like the
Lightning...I got back and told the guy it should have more power, he
looked at me funny and then I said when you have time I will take you
for a ride in a real truck...he said do you have a minute...I said
sure...so off we went...Got out on the road and nailed the throttle and
the only thing he said was oh sh**!

Next time you see one at a dealership...take it for a test drive....even
you the big block devotee will be impressed!
Chris
94 Lightning #38(The Heartbeat stops when the Lightning strikes)
NLOC #238

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!

THE HEARTBREAK OF AMERICA...thats todays cheverolet
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 16:10:39 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

i was not intending to put down a lightning! not me! it was just a
comparison. i may be duly impressed (though it does take alot!)

understand very few vehicles have impressed me alot. among those that have
(as far as stock performance)
kawi zx-11
yamaha rz-350
kawi 3 cyl 750 2 strokes
buick GNX
shelby dakota (not the new dakotas, the old shelby only)
mid 80's mustang LX HO
early-mid 80's shadow turbo
and non-turbo 2.2 turismo HD HO
71 dodge 340 demon/duster

had a few rides in exotics, but they are, well, exotic.

once modified anything can be made to be impressive. i'd like a ride in a
lightning to check it out. i am not doubting its performance. (even
though i feel FORD is letting the performance hot rodding crowd down lately
with their offereings compared to gm - ooh that hurt to say!)

some vehicles impres me with what they can do with what they have, while
others i am duly UNimpressed since they don't seem to live up to my
expectations. (and many vehicles i have not ever had to opertunity to
really compare)

i am not impressed with the new mustangs (not good enough performance) and
the latest ford trucks don't impress me because of their lack of (IMO) good
looks. i also like straight front axles.

i am a big fan of big blocks yes, but i also like small engines. i just
find that for max performance on a budget a big block engine will make more
power per dollar than any small engine can.

sleddog



- ----------
From: Garr&Pam[SMTP:garrpam netgsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 1998 3:22 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

Sleddog wrote:
>
> someone had mentioned the lightnening as the fist full size performance
> truck. since it is not really a full size the shelby dakota does not
> count, but as a comparison in performance my cousin has one (with less
than
> 30,000miles on it) that he got new and with only a set of "9 inch
cheaters"
> was turning 60 ft times quicker than any of the mustangs at island
raceway
> that day. it was turning low 16, high 15's in the 1/4 but off the line
it
> was untouchable. the possible performance of trucks is amazing
considering
> the drawbacks such as wheelbase, weight, airodynamics, poor traction,
etc.
>
> i only ever see two trucks running in large numbers at the digs.
> lightnings and dakotas. the lightning owners seem to like things like
> superchargers, nitrous and high tech stuff. the dakota owners seem to
toss
> the origianl 318 and drop in a bigger small block or big block and use
old
> fashoined methods of horsepower creation like carbs and highly modified
> intakes and nitrous.
>
> just an interesting comparison.
>
> sleddog
>

Sleddog I ahve to jump in on this since I have owned a Lightning since
Feb of this year! It is nothing like you would imagine it to be. It is
quick enough to beat any dakota that has come my way, including the 5.9L
R/T out handles mustanggs and camaros and are relatively easy to modify
to go faster. Sure you can but a big block in any truck and go
fast...well maybe...except the 454 Super Slug... but try to make the
truck handle. I have done few mods to my Lightnings and it simply spanks
Mustangs and can kept up with the Z28s. Plus I could still do normal
truck activities(if I wanted)! Only mods I have are cap, rotor, plugs,
wires, advanced timing, and bassani x pipe and borla nas- truck exhaust!

I test drove a new 5.9R/T Dakota the other day....It is nothing like the
Lightning...I got back and told the guy it should have more power, he
looked at me funny and then I said when you have time I will take you
for a ride in a real truck...he said do you have a minute...I said
sure...so off we went...Got out on the road and nailed the throttle and
the only thing he said was oh sh**!

Next time you see one at a dealership...take it for a test drive....even
you the big block devotee will be impressed!
Chris
94 Lightning #38(The Heartbeat stops when the Lightning strikes)
NLOC #238

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!!

THE HEARTBREAK OF AMERICA...thats todays cheverolet
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 17:05:12 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >

Goodwhsky AOL.COM wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/22/98 9:20:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> manic1 bellsouth.net writes:
>
> > Or Lincolns.. or Aspires.. The 'Cyclone' certainly proved there IS a
> > market for a high performance truck, but by choice I guess Ford isnt
> > interested at this time.
>
> Really? What is the 99.5 Lightning? Supercharged 5.4l V8 (it anit a big
> block, but...), 14.2 1/4 mile, top speed of 140+mph, over .8 g's on the skid
> pad. Sounds pretty high performance to me!

Oops.. brain fade! My apologies to all Lightning owners and fans. :-)

Tim
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 17:13:16 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition

Sleddog wrote:
>
> ok, ok, all may be true 'cept for one thing. far as i can remember the
> original full sized high performance truck was the dodge warlock/lil red
> express trucks of the late 70's. at the time they where considered the
> last true muscle car even with the crappy visuals of stacks and poor
> graphics.
>

I *Liked* the stacks! :-) That's one of the few vehicles that could
sway me from Ford ownership..

Hmm.. stacks on a B-II.. nah.. sidepipes MAYbe, but not if I lose ground
clearance.

TT
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:07:52 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition >

Paul M Radecki wrote:
>
> I posted:
> >> Worst of all, there are plans to equip all vehicles with a
> >> Federally Mandated *transmitter* attached to your Federally Mandated
> >> non-reprogrammable OBD computer which will broadcast your vehicle's
> speed
> >> and emissions compliance to any cop who carries a receiver.
>
> Tim the Manic Mechanic replied:
> >>First I've heard of all this! The OBD PCM *NEEDS* to be reprogrammable
> >unless you really want your computer replaced every time the
> >manufacturer realises the programming wasnt really quite right and
> >causing drivability problems. Also I dont see adding a transmitter
> >capable of carrying the data stream and codes as being justifiable in
> >the price it would add to the sticker; and how would the cop's reciever
> >handle 600+ vehicles in his near vicinity all transmitting to him? It'd
> >be cheaper to have the cop carry a code & data scanner and retrieve the
> >data (AFTER pulling you over; still not sure how well that'd fly under
> >'search & seizure' rights.. but better than the aforementioned
> >scenario).
>
> You are correct about the computer needing to be reprogrammable. I
> should have specified: they don't want the AFTERMARKET to be
> able/permitted to reprogram it.

The OEM's still dont make available the tools to reprogram outside the
dealerships; that was a nasty eye-opener for a former boss of mine when
a '96 GMC 1500 needed a computer.. got the computer and the truck
wouldnt run at ALL; they (GM at least) sell you the computer sans
programming then REQUIRES the vehicle to be there before they'll program
it! (For an additional charge of course..) Rather than having the
vehicle towed we elected to swap in the computer from his similar '97
for the one mile trip; worked fine :-)


> I read about this in a back issue of Motor Trend or some such mag and
> did some further checking. Go poke around on the EPA website and see
> what there is to see there. It's eye-opening. The subagency that
> regulates vehicles is the Office of Mobile Sources. Here is a quote to
> back up what I posted concerning onboard transmitters (note: RSD= Remote
> Sensing Device) :

I've spent probably 40+ hours in the mobile air conditioning part of
their site; guess I'll spend some more in the area you mention.

>
> "RSD systems employ a freeze-frame video camera and equipment to digitize
> an image of the license plate number so that it can be processed by a
> computer. This allows the computer to store emissions information for
> each monitored vehicle, based on the license plate number. Appropriate
> authorities can then identify and contact owners of vehicles with high
> RSD readings.

Similar to the technonology used to catch red light violaters, but still
not on board the vehicle and the information given states that the
emissions are actually measured by the RSD and from the percentage of
misidentification of clean/dirty vehicles it seems it needs a lot of
work yet.
>
> Methods to measure a vehicle's speed and acceleration as it passes
> through the infrared beam are under development. This is important
> because the operating mode (e.g. acceleration, cruise, etc.) can
> significantly affect the instantaneous emission level from a vehicle.
> Some types of operation during an RSD test may be cause for invalidating
> a particular test.

They'd have to do that IMO; if you were passing another vehicle full
throttle (Darn slowpoke!) you would have excess HC & CO compared to
steady state driving. Possibly if the observed speed was too high it
could be reported, but the objective stated was emission monitoring.

>
> Computerized diagnostic technologies may also play a role in future RSD
> systems. Vehicle onboard diagnostic systems, capable of identifying
> certain malfunctions in a vehicle's emission control system, are required
> beginning with 1994 models.

And when any malfunction happens the 'check engine' light is illuminated
to notify the operator that there's a problem requiring service.

> The malfunctions could be reported to
> roadside RSD systems by a small electronic device on the vehicle called a
> radio frequency transponder.

Well.. if people didnt put black tape over the check engine light istead
of getting it repaired we wouldnt need all this. I gather from the
information that it would be vehicles repeatedly observed violating the
clean air act so I wouldnt worry too much about the RSD's unless a
vehicle ISNT maintained properly or modified with non compliant parts.


> Source:www.epa.gov/oms/15-remot.htm

Very interesting and I look forward to exploring further on the site.
:-) I didnt see anything on THAT page about the ability of an officer
to remotely shut down a specific vehicle, but I'll keep looking in other
areas of the OMS section.

>
> Feasability, cost-effectiveness, and Constitutionality are all subject
> to interpretation by the Government.
>

Alas too many people dont research any issues before they vote.. (IF
they vote!) Find out before you vote!!

Thank you for letting me know about this site; I'm sure I'll enjoy
poking around in there.

TT
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:11:48 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

In a message dated 12/24/98 1:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, kevkem epix.net
writes:


find that for max performance on a budget a big block engine will make more
power per dollar than any small engine can. >>

Sleddog, you just found the long way for something I've always said, and that
is:
"The ONLY substitute for cubic inches is rectangular dollars"

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:19:09 -0500
From: "Bruce A. Ramirez"
Subject: FTE Perf - Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas to all. I hope everyone has a safe and joyous holiday.

Bruce Ramirez
1991 F-150 4x4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:21:21 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: bad tank sender

Donald Paauw wrote:
>
> >Tim Turner/Manic Mechanic

> >
> >'85 Faded Grey B-II 2.8 manual everything except steering and a bad tank
> >sender I've never bothered to replace. :-)
>
> Me: '88 Ranger w/ bad tank sender I've never bothered to replace.
>

Between the trip odometer and the 5 gallon can I always carry it's been
pretty unimportant.. I've had a sender from a donor truck that the pump
failed on for about 9 months now and it's still taking up space in my
toolboxes.

TT
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 19:58:10 EST
From: Goodwhsky AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

In a message dated 12/24/98 3:15:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
garrpam netgsi.com writes:

> Next time you see one at a dealership...take it for a test drive....even
> you the big block devotee will be impressed!
> Chris
> 94 Lightning #38(The Heartbeat stops when the Lightning strikes)
> NLOC #238

Alright!! A fellow Lightning owner speaks!

Chuck, 1993 Lightning #3951, NLOC #138
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 17:22:41 -0800
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:52:25 -0800, George wrote:
> A friend who lives in the People's Republic of Kalifornia tells me
> emissions snifters w/video resolution capability of targeting the license
> plates of offenders are being installed on the freeway on-ramps in the
> southern part of that state.
> If the sampling is higher than whatever CARB standard being used at the
> moment, a transmission of the plate is sent to the server, which directs it
> to a software program that generates a letter to the plate owner demanding
> that the vehicle be presented to a state emissions testing facility within
> 10 days. Or have the validity of the plate voided and placed on the central
> Gestapo "MIS" program.

This doesn't seem quite right to me, what about my '61 that has no
pollution controls? What happens if I drive by that thing with my choke
accidentally on? Are they not going to correct for model year
emmissions first?

Birken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 18:40:53 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: S'burb vs. Expedition (more)

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:52:25 -0800, George wrote:
> A friend who lives in the People's Republic of Kalifornia tells me
> emissions snifters w/video resolution capability of targeting the license
> plates of offenders are being installed on the freeway on-ramps in the
> southern part of that state.
> If the sampling is higher than whatever CARB standard being used at the
> moment, a transmission of the plate is sent to the server, which directs
it
> to a software program that generates a letter to the plate owner
demanding
> that the vehicle be presented to a state emissions testing facility
within
> 10 days. Or have the validity of the plate voided and placed on the
central
> Gestapo "MIS" program.

This doesn't seem quite right to me, what about my '61 that has no
pollution controls? What happens if I drive by that thing with my choke
accidentally on? Are they not going to correct for model year
emmissions first?

You're exempt. The way it works, as explained to me, is that the system
uses the DMV database plate numbers as a search reference. I believe
everything in that state prior to '70 something is exempt and coded as
such. Otherwise, the highly intelligent and always friendly public servants
who collect that tax might have problems reading their terminal screens
(does it need the expensive emissions certificate) when you renew your
Ford's evergreen registration tax.
According to my friend, CA has circumvented traditional legislation by
granting it's various agencies, like CARB, the charter to 'regulate' those
areas
any particular agency deems 'in the public interest'. Lots of power without
voter approval.
A future concern for we folks who drive gross polluters could be maybe
another government agency that paints a mandatory, very expensive zebra
striped paint job on our vehicles to easily identify us to the mainstream
drivers as non-conformists. Renewable on an annual basis. Different colors
each year.

Merry Christmas

George Miller



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:08:42 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

and the best i guess is cubic inches AND cubic dollars!
heard a rumor while watching the ATPA pulls on TV that a guy had a jon kasse engine over a bit over 900 cubes! whew!

sleddog

- ----------
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM[SMTP:JUMPINFORD AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 1998 6:11 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

find that for max performance on a budget a big block engine will make more
power per dollar than any small engine can. >>

Sleddog, you just found the long way for something I've always said, and that
is:
"The ONLY substitute for cubic inches is rectangular dollars"

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 23:11:35 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - first real full size performance truck.

enlightning me please...
what's NLOC ???????

sleddog

....

---

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.