Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list perf-list); Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:35:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:35:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar ford-trucks.com>
To: perf-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list Digest V2000 #127
Precedence: list

==========================================================
Ford Truck  Enthusiasts  Performance,  Hot-Rod  and Custom
Truck Mailing List

Visit our  web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in  the subject  of  the
message.
==========================================================

------------------------------------
perf-list Digest Mon, 21 Aug 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 127

In This Issue:
TIRE PROBLEM
Rough Ridin'/FE oil pressure
Re: [Re: [61-79-list] Re: Bronco II]
Re: [TIRE PROBLEM]
Re: Rough Ridin
Re: [Re: [61-79-list] Re: Bronco II]
Tweety's gettin parked
Re: B-II 2.8 valve noise

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:01:19 -0700
From: able office machines <phil ableofficemachines.com>
Subject: TIRE PROBLEM

i have a set of 4 tsl-sx swampers..
they have relatively little miles on them..
i took them to les schwab to have them "unmounted" two at a time
i then installed the "rock-locks" bead lock kit on 1 set of two
returned them to les schwab to be remounted.. NO problems went on great
i then did the 2nd set the same way..
took them to same les schwab.. they attempted to mount them and
apparently
in mounting damaged a bead.. they of course did not tell me and i did
not notice
tell a bit later..
they were picked back up.. i redid the rock locks for a smoother
surface..
after confuring with R-B enterprises he did verify i had installed them
correctly and suggested i resand the surface to allow a smoother mount..
i did notice some gouges in the bead lock surface. but felt that might
have been done by a tool trying to get the bead to seat.. ????
replaced the tires in the back of pickup.. one of them felt "funny" when
i grabbed it
by the inside rim..
they were returned to les.. the mounted one tire.. supposidly in airing
it up the tire "BLEW" and they stopped.. said the rock locks were too
large and the tire was junk..
I spoke to them today.. they remember well about the tire "blowing" and
did not want to touch them further..and are blaming the rock-lock
modification to the rims.  There is a noticeable "crack" in the inner
bead of one of the tires..(when flexxed)
OPTIONS..
1. find a shister and sue them..for damaging my tire..
2. find ONE TSL-SX tire and replace it.
3. have rims rebuilt for bart bead locks (but will the damaged tire
hold.. ???
4. ?????

A set of bart bead locks may be cheaper then a new TSL-SX tire.. if it
will work..
????

phil

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:57:00 -0700
From: scott <scott ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Rough Ridin'/FE oil pressure

My 76 rode like the rear end was bolted to the frame.
I disassembled the springs and the leafs were rusted together.
Cleaned it all up and reassembled.
Now it rides like a tank,which is a major improvement.
I have 2 friends who put National springs on the rear of thier Early
Broncos.
Darn things ride like cars and the springs really work well off-road.

I pulled the distributor out of the 428
and reinstalled it without engaging the oil pump properly.
(I know,I know..rookie mistake and I have been messing with FEs for 20
+ years, my butt still hurts from kicking myself)
Started engine and noticed 0 oil pressure.Pulled dist and reinstalled it
correctly and now I have good oil pressure but not as much as I had.
Went from 25-30 at idle to 10-15.Engine still runs fine and makes no
noise.
In the other FEs I have had 10-15 was the norm but...
I plan on tearing it down this winter,but in the mean time I gotta know
                     What did I hurt?

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

Date: 21 Aug 00 22:30:11 EDT
From: Tim Turner <ManicMechanicNC netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [61-79-list] Re: Bronco II]


Time to bring your wit & wisdom to the 'small' mail list Azzie!  :-)  There
are several V-8 B-II & Ranger owners lurking about on the various lists.  84 &
85 had the 2.8 electrical carb; 86 brought the 2.9 EFI and most engine parts
do NOT swap between the two.  The 2.8 had good low end grunt but kinda anemic
atfer 3500 or so; the 2.9 is noticeably peppier.  (My 85 has 4.10s and is a
slug with 31x10.5x15s)

"wish" <wish ford-trucks.net> wrote:

> >Bronco II's and Rangers share drivetrain parts.

At least among the 4x4 versions; I believe most of the 2wd B-IIs had a 'dummy'
transfer case though.

> >The front clips are
> >interchangeable.

Agreed (usually)

>
> >I don't think the drivetrain would hold up well to a 351.
>
> Amen.

Looking through "Advance Adaptors' information they say the 5 speeds are weak
for 5.0 use as is the C-3; me, I'd use the OE 5 speed and replace as needed
unless $$ wasnt a concern then use the (stronger) tranny of your choice with
the proper adaptations.

>
>
> > The later ones
> >used an 8.8 in the rear (same as the mustang and full size pickups) and a
> >Dana 35 in the front.

Earlier had 7.5 rears

> Some have had problems with cracked heads,

World Performance has a much better head available though if one does crack...
All the ones I've seen cracked were either #1 or # 6 and visible from the
outside if cleaned very well during inspection.

> which is a new one for me, all the
> ones around here have oiling issues,
> lots of clicks from valves/lifters that
> shouldn't be there, but they seem to keep running for quite some time > with
these
> noises.

Most people dont realize the 2.8 has mechanical lifters (The 2.9 is hyd.)
It's not uncommon to see 2-3X normal clearance by the time the 2.8 actually
gets a valve adjustment.  Front seal leakage is common as well; I believe
repair sleeves are available though.

> Swapping a 351 will increase the weight as someone mentioned.  It is also a
> big space hog, if you look at the heater box that protrudes into the engine
> compartment you can see space issues galore.

A 3" body lift helps here, but it's still easier to do the 289/302.

>Its been done, and since you're
> retired with lots of time ... ;)

Well then... a bit of surfing will reveal the site for stuffing a 428 CJ into
a Ranger; dont know if it would clear 4x4 components though.

>
> All that said, the people who have them love them,

AMEN!!  Love my '85; Kim hates to drive it... never have to worry about her
taking it.  ;-)

> a while and drove it around and they are a blast to drive,

Fun to see the expression on the motorcycle and ATV rider's faces when they
see you on their skinny trails.

Tim

85 B-II few options and mostly stock except 31s.


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.netscape.com/webmail

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

Date: 21 Aug 00 23:45:50 EDT
From: Tim Turner <ManicMechanicNC netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [TIRE PROBLEM]


First let me say I know nothing of the locks you're talking about or recall
any TSLs, but I've mounted/dismounted many more tires than I care to
remember..

able office machines <phil ableofficemachines.com> wrote:

> i took them to les schwab to have them "unmounted" two at a time

*Some* tires (notably Michelin) are a PITA to dismount without tearing the
bead and care must be exercised.

> i then installed the "rock-locks" bead lock kit on 1 set of two
> returned them to les schwab to be remounted.. NO problems went on great
> i then did the 2nd set the same way..

Same tire person doing it?  Could have been the FNG the 2nd time around.
(Given the state of the lower back among 'seasoned' personnel they might avoid
heavier tires; personally I dislike anything beyond 235/75/15 from a working
viewpoint, moreso with steel or wide rims.)

> took them to same les schwab.. they attempted to mount them and
> apparently
> in mounting damaged a bead..

Easy enough to do.. of the tires I've ruined probably 65% were dismounting
(most didn't matter except maybe as a 'used' tire); the rest were during
mounting and have included NEW tires.  (Lot of fun to tell the boss you just
scrapped a $125...)

> have been done by a tool trying to get the bead to seat.. ????

In general there's no tool involved to seat the bead; just air.  The beads
I've ruined have been against the 'shoe' that rides above the rim to force it
up/down during the process.

> it up the tire "BLEW" and they stopped..

No doubt!!!  My ears rang for 30 minutes when a 13" blew 10 years ago; hate to
think what kind of noise a 30+ would make.

> said the rock locks were too
> large and the tire was junk..

Of course it wasn't their fault. ;-)  Anything non-OE will get that excuse at
many shops; should have passed on the job from the get-go if they werent
familliar with the parts or asked to see the directions about the locks.

> I spoke to them today.. they remember well about the tire "blowing" and
> did not want to touch them further..

I'll bet!  Pull the trigger on a 2" 44 Magnum Derringer and you'll have an
idea of the noise it made.

> and are blaming the rock-lock
> modification to the rims.  There is a noticeable "crack" in the inner
> bead of one of the tires..(when flexxed)

This crack/tear *CAN* allow air into the tire casing/sidewall and later tire
failure; this is why no matter how much I might dread it I report it upwards
when it happens.

> OPTIONS..

> 1. find a shister and sue them..for damaging my tire..

Good luck..  hard to prove who/what damaged it without bringing the lock
manufacturer into it and that might be a bit more than a small-claim case
would be worth.

> 2. find ONE TSL-SX tire and replace it.

And find a 4x4 shop that's familliar with such.

> 3. have rims rebuilt for bart bead locks (but will the damaged tire
> hold.. ???

i) If you want.  ii) No.

Tim

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.netscape.com/webmail

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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:38:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Rough Ridin

I got to thinking about this on the way home again last night ... one thing you
might want to check is your ball joints and I-beam mounts (sorry TTB mounts
:), if these are loose what could be happening is that when you hit that rise
the wheels actually stop briefly to flex the suspension back and then they're
"forced" over the rise ...

just a thought on some other things to check ...
Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4   6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:46:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [Re: [61-79-list] Re: Bronco II]


>> >Bronco II's and Rangers share drivetrain parts.
>
>At least among the 4x4 versions; I believe most of the 2wd B-IIs had a 'dummy'

>transfer case though.
>

Yeah, that's right, I keep forgetting about that ... Probably the rear driveshaft
is different between the BII and the Ranger's though too :)

Say does anyone remember what years use CV joints on the drive shafts and which
ones use U-joints?  Those are some extreme angles sometimes and can really mess
up a plan ...

>Looking through "Advance Adaptors' information they say the 5 speeds are weak

>for 5.0 use as is the C-3; me, I'd use the OE 5 speed and replace as needed

>unless $$ wasnt a concern then use the (stronger) tranny of your choice with

>the proper adaptations.
>

Good point, the 5spd can be made to live longer as you have a bit more control
over it ... (ie not passing all the torque through first gear if you don't want
to) ... The C3 will likely not last very long in stock form, but something tells
me it can be upgraded to C4 specs or better if you talk to the right people
... the A4LD is the auto that most of my friends have (one 5spd, and 2 autos),
and that didn't even hold up behind the 2.3 in a Mustang, a BII is heavier and
more motor so I can't see it holding up there either.

>Most people dont realize the 2.8 has mechanical lifters (The 2.9 is hyd.)


I did NOT know that :)  The one's I was talking about were all 2.9's though
...

>>Its been done, and since you're
>> retired with lots of time ... ;)
>
>Well then... a bit of surfing will reveal the site for stuffing a 428 CJ into

>a Ranger; dont know if it would clear 4x4 components though.
>

Hahahaha ... good point :)  There's also the Ranger that I posted earlier doin
the autocross thing, though that's "only" a 302 its still street legal (save
for teh front end which he replaces if he needs to drive)

>> a while and drove it around and they are a blast to drive,
>
>Fun to see the expression on the motorcycle and ATV rider's faces when they

>see you on their skinny trails.
>

Hahahah, yeah I suppose ... the one I was driving had a lifter clicking pretty
bad and an exhaust leak, at the lights people looked at me like I was driving
the biggest clunker, but it was a 5spd and so was the Celica next to me ...
I guess he never really learned how to shift though 'cause I took off easy and
it still took him 3 blocks to actually pass me ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4   6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:41:23 EDT
Subject: Tweety's gettin parked

Hello everyone.  IT almost hurts my heart to write this, but as of Saturday,
Tweety is getting garaged.  This motor is getting really bad, and other stuff
is starting to go due to me putting most of my $$ into the engine Im
building.  I was recently offered something I cant refuse, and it all just
really helps my situation.  Im going to park Tweety for the next year or so,
Finish my engine rebuild, clean up the wiring mess under the hood, rebuild my
front suspension.  ALL the brakes need attention.  After thats done, Im going
to gut the interior, and put in a new seat, new carpet, recover the dash.
Rebuild the stereo system, etc etc.  But on the plus side, Im the proud owner
of a 71 Stang with a Cleveland.  Ive owned small blocks, FE's, and Tweety's
460.  I've built an inline six, and a 2.3 four.  But untill now had never
really even messed with a 335 series (short of removing them to install
460's)  This is gonna be fun.  Best part is its cheap. Friends sellin it to
me on a payment plan.  $1600 total, and I know its worth it.  Only thing the
car needs is a clutch and seat covers.  Its a notchback, and in 71 wasnt the
greatest looking car, but I figure it just makes it a sleeper.  As far as
Tweety goes, I'll keep you updated with the progress of the revitalization.
Can we all have a moment of silence, Tweety deserves it I think.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 Super Camper Special Ranger XLT w/ Factory 460 "Tweety"
71 Stang coupe with 351C and a 3 on the floor "yet to be named"

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

Date: 22 Aug 00 21:32:44 EDT
From: Tim Turner <ManicMechanicNC netscape.net>
Subject: Re: B-II 2.8 valve noise

"wish" <wish ford-trucks.net> wrote:

> ones use U-joints?  Those are some extreme angles sometimes and can really
mess
> up a plan ...

'85 has U-joints.. One bad on mine and parts rusted together making it's
replacement a big deal.  :-(

> >Most people dont realize the 2.8 has mechanical lifters (The 2.9 is hyd.)
>
>
> I did NOT know that :)  The one's I was talking about were all 2.9's though

The 2.8 has it's roots in the Capri car where it did a great job, some Pintos
were equipped with it as well.  No idea why the underhood decal never
mentioned valve clearance to indicate being mech. lifters on the B-II/Ranger.
Last I knew "Racer Walsh" had some nice performance parts for the 2.8, not
listed on the web-site but listed in the catalog.


I got my 85 B-II at 130,000+ and the valve clearance averaged around .050"; it
wasn't 'quiet' after the adjustment but it was a darn sight less noisy than it
was.  Might be easy to get a 2.8 B-II cheap from the noise and adjust the
valves for resale or personal use.

Tim


> ...
>
> >>Its been done, and since you're
> >> retired with lots of time ... ;)
> >
> >Well then... a bit of surfing will reveal the site for stuffing a 428 CJ
into
>
> >a Ranger; dont know if it would clear 4x4 components though.
> >
>
> Hahahaha ... good point :)  There's also the Ranger that I posted earlier
doin
> the autocross thing, though that's "only" a 302 its still street legal
(save
> for teh front end which he replaces if he needs to drive)
>
> >> a while and drove it around and they are a blast to drive,
> >
> >Fun to see the expression on the motorcycle and ATV rider's faces when
they
>
> >see you on their skinny trails.
> >
>
> Hahahah, yeah I suppose ... the one I was driving had a lifter clicking
pretty
> bad and an exhaust leak, at the lights people looked at me like I was
driving
> the biggest clunker, but it was a 5spd and so was the Celica next to me ...
> I guess he never really learned how to shift though 'cause I took off easy
and
> it still took him 3 blocks to actually pass me ...
>
> Just my $.02
> wish
>
> 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
> 73ish 1/2ton 4x4   6.4L
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish
>
> Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> http://www.ford-trucks.com
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.netscape.com/webmail ....


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.