perf-list-digest Friday, April 2 1999 Volume 02 : Number 074



=======================================================================
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 - Engine swap
Re: FTE Perf - Engine swap
RE: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?
Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?
FTE Perf - RE: A/f monitor
Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?
Re: FTE Perf - '85 EFI
FTE Perf - A/F monitor
Re: FTE Perf - A/F monitor
Re: FTE Perf - '85 EFI
Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?
Re: FTE Perf - Emissions
Re: FTE Perf - Engine swap
Re: FTE Perf - Emissions
Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD
Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD
Laws, jobs etc. was Re: FTE Perf - Oregon Law Changes - JJThomas
FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Emissions
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important
Re: FTE Perf - Important

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:44:23 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Engine swap

William Hart writes: >>Hello all, I have been asked by a friend of mine to help
a guy out with an
engine swap. I was hoping some of you would have an idea what to charge on
this. Its going to be the same engines, one from a junkyard that runs, one
that doesn't run and is in a truck currently.

It all depends on the particular vehicle and the accessories involved and
whether it is auto or standard shift. I can change an FE equipped Ford truck of
the '73-79 vintage with no A/C in less than a day by myself, provided I don't
break any exhaust manifold bolts. Either auto or manual, but I'd personally
rather change an auto as a manual. I don't have nearly as much trouble getting
the torque converter lined up and bolted as I do getting the inputshaft of a
manual shift to align and seat in the throwout bearing and clutch assy. If it
is an off brand, then I would naturally double my estimate. Figure how long it
would take you and multiply the $/hr figure you want, and go from there .

I know I didn't really say anything to help, but I had to say something.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:53:47 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Engine swap

>It all depends on the particular vehicle and the accessories involved and
>whether it is auto or standard shift. I can change an FE equipped Ford
>truck of
>the '73-79 vintage with no A/C in less than a day by myself, provided I don't
>break any exhaust manifold bolts. Either auto or manual, but I'd personally
>rather change an auto as a manual. I don't have nearly as much trouble
>getting

>is an off brand, then I would naturally double my estimate. Figure how
long it
>would take you and multiply the $/hr figure you want, and go from there .
>
>I know I didn't really say anything to help, but I had to say something.
>

Thanks though Azie, I've asked to look at the truck before I say for sure I
will do it. It is an auto w/air, also an 87 vintage, but no fuel
injection, still a 2V. I'm a little afraid of the mess of spaghetti I'm
gonna fine, but we'll see. I was hopin it would only take a weekend or a
day more. On the plus side, I can probably pick up the engine by myself if
I have to.

I was gonna charge him one rate to do it myself, another rate thats about
+10% if he helps ... :) j/k I don't think he'll want to do much.

Thanks for the input, I'll file it away...


Thanks,
wish
73ish F-1?? 4x4 360-->390 http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
96 Mustang GT
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/mustang.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:54:00 -0500
From: J Cope
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?

I was always wondering how it would hold up to getting airborne... Its not
in bad condition, but it's still my daily driver, so tend to err on the
side of caution...

JC

- -----Original Message-----
From:Bogginf350 AOL.COM [SMTP:Bogginf350 AOL.COM]
Sent:Thursday, April 01, 1999 12:23 AM
To:perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject:Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?

have any questions about the dana28 front in your truck feel free to
ask....
ive had a few.. and yeah.. they have seen some airtime
== 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, 01 Apr 1999 07:45:34 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?

Bogginf350 AOL.COM wrote:

> its a 79 van....... who cares!

Ok, so a 79 Van was not really related to the subject but it was about
tires. There was a lot more information in that post than there was in
yours. And how considerate of others is that saying " who cares!". Some
post should have never been sent to the list that have no bearing on the
subject.... and some post should never had been written. Including this
one.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net


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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:49:12 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: A/f monitor

From: "J.S.H."
Anybody running a Air/Fuel Ratio Monitor?
Summit has them from three manufacturers,Edelbrock,Holley and K&N.
They read A/F ratio off of a Oxgen sensor.I was thinking with one of
these I could keep my truck in tune no matter the elevation :etc.


Best device you could add for tuning. But you should be aware that you need
not spend the going rate for this device. ($120-$150)
Summit had a gage (no sensor) for $25 and Cyperdyne has them for $35
(JEGGS). Generally the bung, or the threaded nut that you must weld to the
exhaust pipe is about $3 and you can get a sensor for $35 to $50.
So that comes to $90 total if you shop around. So what is the difference
between the $120 unit and the one that you pieced together? $30 and the
wires, instructions come with the gage and having access to testing equip.
for O2 sensors they are all the same until you get to a UEGO, so for me $30
is too much to pay for wires!
Muel


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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:41:05 EST
From: Bogginf350 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?

don, for your information if all you want to do is rip on people for their
posts.... please look to to the posts that i did earlier... i came into this
convo with intentions of helping someone with a broncoII not a van... so if
you want to start some bull please e mail me personally so this doesnt waste
everyones time...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:14:29 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - '85 EFI

>From: "Rob Bryan"
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - '85 EFI
>
>snip my info
>
>This is wrong. It went by engine, not GVWR. The
>5.0 got EFI midway through 1985. The 4.9 got it
>in 1987, and the 5.8 and 7.5 got it in 1988.

Yo Rob et al:

OK, I was going from what I've seen and making assumptions. I think you are
right about application of EFI by engine, although to some extent, availability
of engines is based on GVW (7.5L was not available in an F150 or Bronco).

I have seen an '86 Bronco w/ an EFI 351W. I assumed it was the original engine,
but it may not have been. The 4V carbureted 351W was the 5.8HO, and I have seen
it in F250HDs and F350s as late as 1987, but I was not aware that it was
available after 1985 in F150s and Broncos.

Sorry for any confusion I caused.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:30:42 -0800
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE Perf - A/F monitor

"Anybody running a Air/Fuel Ratio Monitor?
>Summit has them from three manufacturers,Edelbrock,Holley and K&N.
>They read A/F ratio off of a Oxgen sensor.I was thinking with one of
>these I could keep my truck in tune no matter the elevation :etc.

I have heard that these aren't really very accurate ... nothing to base
this on though. I would think a vaccuum gauge would serve you better
for
tuning, especially at first if you were calibrating the A/F monitor with
the vaccuum gauge so you knew where you wanted to run ..."

What I'm trying to accomplish with a A/F monitor is related to towing .
I'm trying to avoid leaning out the motor when my foot is on the floor
while pulling a long hill with my travel trailer.
This suumer I plan on taking a trip that involves elevations between
sea level and 8000 feet.
I could just put some big jets in my AFB and go for it,but here in Reno
premium is $1.89 a gallon.
Any ideas?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:37:36 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - A/F monitor

"J.S.H." wrote:
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish with a A/F monitor is related to towing .
> I'm trying to avoid leaning out the motor when my foot is on the floor
> while pulling a long hill with my travel trailer.

Understandable!

> This suumer I plan on taking a trip that involves elevations between
> sea level and 8000 feet.
> I could just put some big jets in my AFB and go for it,but here in Reno
> premium is $1.89 a gallon.

I presume since it's got an AFB the towing vehicle does *not* have any
computerized controls (or O2 sensor) so I'd pass. The ideal 14.7:1 is
actually ideal for the best balance of *emissions* and economy whereas
power needs a richer mixture (12:1?) If expense isn't a concern you
could fit exhaust gas temperature units to the manifolds as is common
with piston aircraft... (The EGT goes up when the mixture gets too
lean). Unfortunately you dont have direct control of the mixture like
you would in a plane so you'd have to either intentionally jet lean and
richen by adding a bit of choke or do a *LOT* of testing...

Maybe just carry an assortment of jets and swap 'em as needed at fuel
stops? ;-)

Tim
> Any ideas?
> == 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, 1 Apr 1999 20:27:44 EST
From: Bogginf350 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - '85 EFI

the 7.5 (460) was available in the older F150
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:46:05 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Bigger Tires?

J Cope wrote:
>
> Hi all. I've got a stock 88 BII, and I was told by someone at a tire
> warehouse that I could fit 30x9.5's on the truck with no rubbing problems.

Probably.. My stock 85 has 31x10.5s with under 50% tread and will rub
once in a while off-road during bumpy turns. A lot depends on the wheel
you use also; if the offset isn't stock they may not work. A 3" body
lift kit is only about $100 bucks though!

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:58:14 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Emissions

"J.S.H." wrote:
>
> "I don't know about other states, but here in Connecticut,
> >the emissions system is a joke.
> >
> >To wit: 1988 Ranger, 198K on the motor, no tune up in
> >50K at least, negative oil changes (just added oil when
> >needed for at least 50K, knocking like a banshee and
> >no cat converter passed the "test" no sweat.
> >

Buy a Chevy.. I *hate* to see a Ford abused like that.

> >What does that tell you?"

That Ford builds one Hell of a good injection/emissions system.. (And
engine given the poor care it's gotten!)

>
> It tells me why the goverment passes emission laws under the
> assumption that a large portion of people do not maintain thier
> vehicles properly.

And do take normal wear into account as well; in NC the allowable
emissions are tiered by year in the counties that require testing.

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:14:29 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Engine swap

William S Hart wrote:
>
> I was gonna charge him one rate to do it myself, another rate thats about
> +10% if he helps ... :) j/k I don't think he'll want to do much.

Used to have a sign in the lid of my tool box listing labor rates
including if you watched, tried to help or laughed.. ;-) Nowadays if a
friend needs work I just say I'll bring any tools you dont have, tell
you what to do when you dont know and just generally advise/assist and
you're buying the beer! On the serious side though, for my
'mechanically challenged' friends I usually charge 1/2 the going labor
rate of the shop. Not knowing exactly what kind of truck/engine I'd
guess around 10 hours unless it's 4WD in which case I'd add a few hours.

Tim Turner/Manic Mechanic
Custer Auto Repair
Wilmington NC

Hmm... After I get done with mail I might make another sign for my box.
:-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:00:20 -0600
From: "C. K. Hartline"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Emissions

In Missouri if you do not have a catylitic converter under the vehicle
then you fail the inspection even
before they put an emissions guauge up the tail pipe. I bought an 83 Chevy
Van with duals on it and no cats, ran like a champ. But in order to pass
inspection in St. Louis, they took my little 305 and slapped catylitic
converters on it and took away the duals
for dual cats>...since then, I've replaced the carb, and now the
transmission has given out after numerous adjustments on the transmission to
compensate for vacumn and backpressure related problems. I really miss my
351 F-150 Ext Cab 87 Ford. Of course my dad really likes it, since thats
who I sold it too. But what gets me, is that if I wanted
because I feel it's important to keep things legal> I could have easily paid
someone to pass the van without replacing the exhaust. I know it's
important to keep emissions down, but it almost seems like it's just another
business to keep the economy going.

C.K.

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:04:09 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD

Thomas Caswell wrote:
>
> I have a 1986 Bronco II 4WD which has over 150,000 miles on the
> odometer.

156,000 on my 85 B-II

> still runs pretty well, but I think that I may be living on
> borrowed time.

I *know* I am...gas mileage is poor and oil consumption is high.

> Because the body and frame are still in such excellent
> condition, I am considering installing a 5.0 V8 in it when this engine
> finally dies.

I'm redoing mine because I just plain *LIKE* the durn thing! :-)

>
> I have a few questions about this procedure, and if you have any
> experience with this swap or a similar one, I look forward to your
> feedback!

First let me say I haven't done one, but have done a LOT of research
about it. I'd suggest going to the web site of 'Advance Adapters' and
getting the brochure about this swap; from what I've seen they have the
best solution IMHO.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.advanceadapters.com/Ford/Ford.html

Just on the dreaming side you might want to check out this link as
well.. 429 Ranger! Also good info on the swaps.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/TOCOOL4U26/myranger.htm

>
> 1. Is it worthwhile to seek out a late-model 5.0 with EFI and emissions
> components, or is the added complexity more trouble than it's worth?

It runs better, hood clearance for the carb/air cleaner isn't an issue.
emissions are clean and derivability is excellent. Also lots of high
performance goodies available.. Be aware though that I'm proficient in
FI diagnostics so the complexity isn't an issue in my application.

>
> 2. From what I have read, I will need to replace my stock automatic
> (w/OD) transmission, with a C4 which will need some aftermarket
> modifications in the area of the bell housing, tail housing, flywheel,
> and possibly the torque convertor. What is the optimal automatic
> transmission set-up for this application?

Check the Advance site, I think they have workable solutions for OD but
I may be wrong. In general their products dont require much (usually
none!) in the drive line modifications.

>
> 3. My Bronco II has the electronic 4WD system. Will the front and rear
> axles and the stock transfer case hold up under the additional stress of
> a V8? If not, what are some viable alternatives?

Run 'em until they go!

>
> 4. How much easier does a 2 inch body lift make the V8 installation? Is
> it far more difficult to do the swap without it? If I were to install
> the lift, what additional changes would be required to the suspension?

MUCH easier especially if you have A/C on the firewall. No mod's
required for a straight body lift ($100 or so) as the suspension points
dont really change that much for a small body lift. It might be worth
looking into a small suspension lift at the same time though as it will
have new and heavier front springs ($300 or so).

>
> 5. Is there anything that I'm forgetting? The idea of this project has
> really got me excited so any information that you could share would be
> extremely valuable!

Much patience and if you go the EFI route you'll need the
computer/wiring harness and possibly the fuel pump and sending unit from
the donor vehicle. Expect seemingly small obstacles to take more time
than they look. ;-)

Most of all.. check into your state's emission laws BEFORE you do it; in
my state the vehicle *must* have had that engine as an option to pass
inspection and this is why I'll stay with the anemic 2.8 and modify it
as I see fit.

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:37:37 -0600
From: "C. K. Hartline"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD

We have the same problem here in Missouri, you can't take a v-6 out of
something, and slap a big block in it if it isn't
an option for that year. That is one reason I'm going to build my 41 Ford,
or break down and just buy a NEW truck and deal with the junk on the new
vehicle.

C.K.

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:47:48 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Laws, jobs etc. was Re: FTE Perf - Oregon Law Changes - JJThomas

JJ Thomas wrote:
>
> My inquiry was more for information gathering than anything else. I really
> have no position on this.
>
> For the most part it is unlikely that I would restore an older vehicle. If
> I did get the time, it would be a '68 Hemi Charger, or Road Runner Super Bee.

Another old Mopar fan! Super Bird or Hemi 'Cuda would be my choices
though. For the trivia fans the EPA had a Super Bird that was used to
chase aircraft taking off to check emissions that was later auctioned
off by bids among EPA employees. (I'm still mad at my Dad for not
putting in a higher bid!!)

>
> I am a Network Engineer by trade and the amount of information I have to
> keep up with tends to limit my spare time. (no sympathy, I enjoy my
> career choices) Most of the world gets the latest and greatest computers
> and software, I get to figure out how to keep it all working together
> without blowing up the network.


I know what you mean.. I keep up with the automotive advances primarily,
but have to keep up with the PC industry as that's *my* side job. I've
got networks in a few shops in town plus trying to get a web site up for
the shop I'm at plus the home network etc. etc.. (A 3 ball tom cat aint
any busier I think!)


> On the side, I am a Sound Engineer
> (live and studio) and a retired Deejay. With all that and my church
> duties, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to restore a car or truck.

Agreed.. Both my vehicles need my loving touch and I've got another more
deserving vehicle coming some years later (58 TR-3 that was bought new
by my parents).

>
> As a former auto mechanic, I would love to get a car or truck to tinker
> with. But in reality I don't have the time.

Sometimes I'd like to tinker.. I enjoy that. After 40+ hours of
repairing I've usually had my fill for the week though. But... the
right vehicle and my fiancee would probably be complaining! ;-)

>
> While I was laid off for the last three months, I spent all my time
> studying for my MCSE (Microsoft certification). About two weeks after
> passing, I got a very good job offer.

Is that test as much of a joke as the ASE tests? (i.e. a bit of study
will get you the cert even though you dont know what's really up.)

>
> One of the reasons for joining this list was to figure out how to replace a
> defective Ranger. Do I go for the Ranger with all the doodads? Economical
> but difficult to modify. Or, do I go for the F-350, a basic truck, with
> lots of add-on possibilities and a V-8 to boot. And if I do get the F-350
> (4x4 btw) I will be doing some performance upgrades. You can take the
> mechanic out of the shop but you can't take the shop out of the mechanic.

Both have lots of upgrades available; bigger throttle bodies and better
exhaust do wonders. Agreed on the shop/mechanic.. .. I tried to
get out twice but without paper saying I know what I'm doing on PCs I
cant replace my income any time soon.

>
> As far as taking a position on this, I have a few thoughts:
>
> As far as restoration goes, I think if the vehicle can be restored to
> factory condition, it should be allowed to be registered. I would probably
> sign off for a stringent safety test, though.

Agreed on condition, but what do you mean by the test? With a single
reservoir master etc it's certainly not as safe as a newer vehicle. As
long as it passes the testing here I'd be happy. Suspension, brakes,
lights, wiper(s) and so forth..

>
> IMHO, I do not think a vehicle that has sustain major structural damage
> should be allowed to be titled.

I used to agree, but having seen the results of what can be done on
newer vehicles I'm not so sure.

>
> Passing emission tests is a difficult topic for me. On one hand, if a
> restored vehicle can meet the emission standards that were in place the
> year it is was manufactured, I think it should be eligible for titling. On

Or better; in my state I cant replace my gross polluting carbureted 2.8
with a 2.9 or 5.0 EFI engine that would be cleaner than stock as it was
not an OEM option.

> the other hand, I suffer from asthma. I personally think all pollution
> should be removed. It would make my breathing easier. ...I think I'll
> just stay neutral.

Other than saying motor vehicles arent the biggest cause I'll stay out
too.

>
> So far as the Auto Dismantling Emporium's and weather-stripping suppliers
> go, I don't base my decisions or opinions on anothers capitalistic
> ventures. I know that when semi-conductors became prevalent, the tube
> testers disappeared from the local 7-11's. I think they were replaced with
> microwaves and ready to eat food.

Wish they still had them.. I've got a few tubes to test from AB type
amps rather than replacing all 4 in each.

>
> I have a lot of militant friends. I tend to agree with 80 to 90 percent of
> their anti-government rhetoric. Personally, I wish the government would
> spend more of my tax dollars on things other than what I do in my home, on
> my computer, what I watch on TV, what I do to my car, etc... And don't get
> me started on the Star thing!!!

Dont get me started on the 'anti-porn' things..

> I agree that there are a lot of asinine
> laws in place as well as being considered. I have even been known to speak
> up against a few now and then.


Me too.. consider it a compliment if the newspaper editor knows your
name!


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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:42:58 -0800
From: George Miller
Subject: FTE Perf - Important

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corral.net/

If you haven't heard what happened at the above site, and all Mustang
aftermarket oriented sites, I urge you to go there and read the text. It
could eventually have a major impact on this site and other performance
oriented discussions.

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:50:33 EST
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Emissions

According to EPA regulations, it is BY LAW illegal to alter the configuration
of your vehicle emissions system as it came from the factory. Example, my
Flareside has the standard header-ypipe-dual cat- to single out exhaust. I
CANNOT change the original configuration before the cats, even if I wanted to
pay the extra for the dual cats and such. That's why I am so pissed off that
BBK had a mold and production run on an after-market high-flow ypipe for the
5.0 and 5.7. Unfortunately, many owners didn't know about this product, so
they didn't sell many, and consequently stopped production and broke the
mold. There are a few of these gems left and I am in the process of procuring
one. I have a friend with a standard cab F150 (5.7/E4OD) who has one of
these. After this was installed, he dyno'd it and came up with 20 more rear
wheel (corrected) horsepower...but it was pricey. The part itself without tax
and shipping was over $300. But you have to pay to play.
My 2 coins,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
Website under construction
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:57:41 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Important

At 08:42 PM 4/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corral.net/
>
>If you haven't heard what happened at the above site, and all Mustang
>aftermarket oriented sites, I urge you to go there and read the text. It
>could eventually have a major impact on this site and other performance
>oriented discussions.
>
>George Miller

I suggest you click on the "Click here for more information" link
at the bottom of the page.

Ken

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:57:34 EST
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Important

In a message dated 4/1/99 11:44:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mega55 lv.rmci.net writes:

>
What a bunch of smarta$. I guess we all forgot it is April 1....April fools
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:31:10 -0600
From: "C. K. Hartline"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Important

I can't believe Ford actually did that!! Shut down a site
NUMEROUS sites> on the net because they build an inferior product?!! I would
think a better choice would be to simply make a warranty statement that is
voided by aftermarket enhancements that are designed to increase horsepower.
IE: upgrade your vehicle with unauthorized parts at your own risk. I think
this is either an April Fool's joke, or Ford really needs to think about the
stupity of this move.

C.K.

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:11:54 -0800
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Important

I was so conditioned to loss of civil rights that I took it as just
another legal decision on the road to centralized government.

George miller

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> At 08:42 PM 4/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corral.net/
> >
> >If you haven't heard what happened at the above site, and all Mustang
> >aftermarket oriented sites, I urge you to go there and read the text. It
> >could eventually have a major impact on this site and other performance
> >oriented discussions.
> >
> >George Miller
>
> I suggest you click on the "Click here for more information" link
> at the bottom of the page.
>
> Ken
>
> == 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: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:17:03 EST
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Important

HELLO....are any of you looking at the other posts? THIS IS A JOKE! Fomoco
wouldn't jeopardize its global holdings to make such a move. Secondly, my
buddy at Ford factory would have told me about something like this WAY before
it got to this point and I would have informed you all long
ago.....JEEEZ..lighten up all
Wayne (the informant) Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"....


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.