....


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.


Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages
contained in these archives without consent from the respective
author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on
any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by
individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors.

Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list small-list); Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:26:36 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:26:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server ford-trucks.com>
To: small-list digest users ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list Digest V2000 #19
Precedence: bulk

==========================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassis 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 small-list" in the subject of the
message.
==========================================================

------------------------------------
small-list Digest Mon, 28 Feb 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 019

In This Issue:
Upgrade question
Re: More On the Leaky Intake Manifolds
TURBO 2.3
Re: Upgrade question
Re: TURBO 2.3
Re: Upgrade question
Re: TURBO 2.3
Re: Upgrade question
Re: Upgrade question
Re: TURBO 2.3
Small Alignments
Re: [Upgrade question]
How to fix dull plastic lenses?

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

From: "Joey Ramsey" hotmail.com>
Subject: Upgrade question
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 20:32:47 PST

Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and intake,
or headers?
-Joe
______________________________________________________


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

From: "mikah vosekuil" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: More On the Leaky Intake Manifolds
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:38:00 PST

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE FUEL RAIL SCHRADER VALVE. YOU HOOK UP A FUEL PRESSURE
GAUGE TO IT TO TEST FOR PROPER FUEL PRESSURE AND FUEL VOLUME. 3M ALSO HAS A
FUEL SYSTEM CLEANING KIT THAT HOOKS IN TO THE VALVE. YOU CONNECT A HOSE TO
THE VALVE AND TO A PRESSURE REGULATOR THEN TO THE CAN OF CLEANER. THEN YOU
DISABLE THE FUEL PUMP AND ATART THE ENGINE. IT RUNS OFF THE CLEANING
SOLUTION. ITS A REAL HELPFUL THING TO HAVE, THATS WHY ALMOST ALL VEHICLES
HAVE ONE BUILT IN SOMEWHERE.


>From: Wesley Murphy highland.net>
>Reply-To: small-list ford-trucks.com
>To: small-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: [small-list] More On the Leaky Intake Manifolds
>Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:40:44 -0500
>
>I was tightening what I believe to be the intake manifolds today on my 91
>EB
>Explorer and noticed something strange. Where the manifold bolts to the
>intake, there is a small recess that is not covered on the left side of the
>2 inside intakes. One of the small recesses is right beside the fuel rail
>cleanout valve (if that's what the little tire valve-looking thing is used
>for). Can anyone tell me if this is normal?
>
>Thanks,
>Wesley Murphy
>
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the body of the
>message.
>

______________________________________________________


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

From: "mikah vosekuil" hotmail.com>
Subject: TURBO 2.3
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:42:09 PST

i recently bought another 87 ranger with a blown engine. i plan to make
this a project vehicle. i have another ranger that is in the process of
installing a HO 302. i don't want to do the same with this one though. i
was wondering if any one has ever put a turbocharged 2.3 in a ranger, if so
how complicated was it?
i will have to find a processor from a thunderbird turbo coupe or an early
80's svo mustang. any help or other ideas would be appreciated.

______________________________________________________


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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:13:23 -0800
From: "Jon,Jody" direct.ca>
Subject: Re: Upgrade question



Joey Ramsey wrote:

> Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and intake,
> or headers?

That's not much to go on, but in most cases, I'd say that headers are a better
bet for the money. You may not get quite as much HP, but it will be a LOT
cheaper, and probably less hassle to install.

Just my .02
Blue coyote


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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:18:55 -0800
From: "Jon,Jody" direct.ca>
Subject: Re: TURBO 2.3



mikah vosekuil wrote:

> i recently bought another 87 ranger with a blown engine. i plan to make
> this a project vehicle. i have another ranger that is in the process of
> installing a HO 302. i don't want to do the same with this one though. i
> was wondering if any one has ever put a turbocharged 2.3 in a ranger, if so
> how complicated was it?
> i will have to find a processor from a thunderbird turbo coupe or an early
> 80's svo mustang. any help or other ideas would be appreciated.
>

Personally, I dislike the 2.3 (turbo or not). Not trying to start a love/hate
thread, just my feeling. Why not go for a 3.8 turbo?

Just ramblin'
Blue coyote


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

From: JIMBO01947 aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:44:31 EST
Subject: Re: Upgrade question

In a message dated 02/28/2000 11:35:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
joepr hotmail.com writes:

<< Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and
intake,
or headers?
-Joe >>
Exactly what engine are you talking about? What type of induction system
does it have now? What year? etc.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:47:50 -0500
From: David Cooley bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: TURBO 2.3

At 01:18 AM 2/29/2000, you wrote:


>mikah vosekuil wrote:
>
> > i recently bought another 87 ranger with a blown engine. i plan to make
> > this a project vehicle. i have another ranger that is in the process of
> > installing a HO 302. i don't want to do the same with this one though. i
> > was wondering if any one has ever put a turbocharged 2.3 in a ranger, if so
> > how complicated was it?
> > i will have to find a processor from a thunderbird turbo coupe or an early
> > 80's svo mustang. any help or other ideas would be appreciated.
> >
>
>Personally, I dislike the 2.3 (turbo or not). Not trying to start a love/hate
>thread, just my feeling. Why not go for a 3.8 turbo?


Actually, the turbocharged 2.3 is a pretty bullet proof engine. I had a
1985 Buick Grand National, 3.8L Turbo. Bone stock, I got blown away by a
slightly massaged 2.3L turbo Tbird. There is one guy running a turbo'd 2.3
in a pinto that is pumping over 400HP into a toploader 4 speed. He's
running over 25PSI boost, but has the little pinto deep into the 10 second
1/4 mile bracket.


===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMTbellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMTKQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================


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

Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:50:26 -0500
From: David Cooley bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Upgrade question

At 01:13 AM 2/29/2000, you wrote:


>Joey Ramsey wrote:
>
> > Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and intake,
> > or headers?
>
>That's not much to go on, but in most cases, I'd say that headers are a better
>bet for the money. You may not get quite as much HP, but it will be a LOT
>cheaper, and probably less hassle to install.


I agree... Plus, you can't start to improve the intake flow until you
improve the exhaust. You can't get more air in if you aren't getting more
air out!
I just put a set of Motorsports headers on my 5.0L Explorer. BIG
difference. Cat back system was already in place. Stock manifolds are
junk. Tubular header design, but the tubes are flattened and crimped to
make them fit. Motorsports headers are nice smooth, fully round tubes all
the way out.

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMTbellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMTKQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================


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

From: "Joey Ramsey" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrade question
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:15:02 PST

Well, its not a Ford thats why I didnt give to much info to start off with.
Its my project truck, a 1977 IHC Scout II its a 345 on a t409(727a with
IHC's bolt patter). The header's would have to be block hugger's because
there isnt much room around the frame, and the starter would be in the way.
The 4b I could take straight across on a stock swap.
-Joe


>From: JIMBO01947aol.com
>Reply-To: small-listford-trucks.com
>To: small-listford-trucks.com
>Subject: [small-list] Re: Upgrade question
>Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:44:31 EST
>
>In a message dated 02/28/2000 11:35:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>joeprhotmail.com writes:
>
><< Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and
>intake,
> or headers?
> -Joe >>
>Exactly what engine are you talking about? What type of induction system
>does it have now? What year? etc.
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the body of the
>message.
>

______________________________________________________


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

From: FordRangerguyaol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:04:56 EST
Subject: Re: TURBO 2.3

The same guy that has the pinto also has a turbo 2.3 ranger and supposedly it
gets 23 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway.

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

Date: 29 Feb 00 20:46:18 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Small Alignments

Okay; on the subject of alignments for small Fords I leafed through one of
our catalogs at work from Specialty Products Company. 91-94 Explorers use the
ball joint bushings I was describing, but in '95 the Explorer went to a
torsion bar suspension and uses eccentrics to move the A-frame to the desired
angle(s). I don't have a price handy for the kit, but the suggested labor was
.5 Hr. for the passenger side and .7 for the drivers side.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.specprod.com is the URL for the company; unfortunately the entire
product line isn't available yet from the web site, but going to the 'new
products' page and looking at the extended range Ford bushings will give a
good idea for how the bushing type achieves the desired angle change. The
part # for the '95-up Explorer is 87500 FWIW...

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused!

Tim

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

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

Date: 29 Feb 00 21:04:36 EST
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Upgrade question]

"Joey Ramsey" hotmail.com> wrote:
> Which would I be better off upgrading to(power wise), a 4b carb and intake,

> or headers?

What engine, truck and fuel system? If it's a carbureted engine I'd say the
intake and 4Bbl assuming your local emission laws permit it. Of course I'd
suggest changing the cam and adding the headers at a later date for even more
power... The cam (if chosen properly) would probably reap the largest gain
IMHO.

Tim


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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:27:39 -0500
From: Harry Trafford GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Subject: How to fix dull plastic lenses?

The plastic headlight lenses on my '90 B-II are dull and
semi-transparent, as if they had been sand blasted.
This condition must severely cut down on the
brightness of the headlights. The taillight lenses suffer
the same affliction.
Has anyone actually used a special technique or
product to restore the lenses back to their once
clear and transparent condition?

TIA,
Harry
S. Florida

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

End of small-list Digest V2000 #19
**********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassic Truck Mailing List
Covering the Ranger, Bronco II, Exploer and Aerostar

Send posts to small-listford-trucks.com

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing
list, send an email to:

listarford-trucks.com

with the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject of
the message.

Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
----------------------------------------------------------