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); Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:46:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:46:28 -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 #34
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, 20 Mar 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 034

In This Issue:
Re: Constipated Catalytic Converters
Re: Fuel Pumps-In Tank
93 Ranger mileage
Re: 93 Ranger mileage
Re: 93 Ranger mileage
Re: 93 Ranger mileage
Re: 93 Ranger mileage
Re: Fuel Pumps-In Tank
(no subject)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:54:42 -0600
From: Neal Armstrong ccsi.com>
Subject: Re: Constipated Catalytic Converters

Ron,

Based upon similar performance and pinging symptoms with a '94 TBird,
I'd suggest you investigate the condition of your MAF sensor. These
frequently develop a coating over time and cause incorrect information
to be sent to the computer regarding the volume of air being passed to
the throttle body. Consequently, my car ran in a constant lean
condition which caused detonation and substandard performance. The gas
milage drop could be unrelated, or it could be caused by having your
foot in it more than normal. Sometimes they can be cleaned with carb
spray and/or electrical contact spray cleaner (in any case, don't touch
the wire - its very fragile). Didn't help in my case (I put in a new
sensor and it runs great now), but others on this and the performance
list have reported that cleaning did help.

The TBird has OBD-II, which allows a direct read on the air volume being
reported. Your Xploder doesn't have OBD-II, and I'm not sure if it is
possible to read the MAF - does anyone reading this know? (Tim?)

Neal


> From: "Ron,Marge,Ted" sunlink.net>
> Subject: Constipated Catalytic Converters
> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:15:09 -0500
>
> Hi All,
>
> Since I don't usually drive my wife's 94 Explorer much, it takes me awhile to notice any changes in it. Well it seems to me that it is running kind of sluggish, especially on the hills here in PA. We use to get about 22 mpg on a trip with it, but last weekend, we took a trip and only came up with 18 mpgs! In the past, we had problems with it pinging, so I think I may have over did it with injector cleaner trying to get rid of carbon build-up. My gut feeling is that the sluggish performance and drop in gas mileage may be due to plugged up catalytic converters because of over use of injector cleaners. My question is, is there any way to test for a defective cat converter other than just replacing it? Thanks for any help!
>
> Ron

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:45:12 -0700
From: Cliff Cameron cepg.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Pumps-In Tank

Make sure the wiring to the tank is good before you replace the pump. I replaced mine first and could have saved myself
the trouble if I had checked the wiring carefully. There was power in the line as indicated by my test light , but the
wires were so badly corroded that they couldn't pass enough current to run the pump. On my in-laws B II, they had the
same symptoms, but it turned out the pin the wire connects to on the tank was broken off.

To remove the tank, pull off the skid plate, remove the wires carefully and remove the tank straps. I used a trolley
jack with a piece of wood on it to support the tank without denting it. I found LOTS of penetrating oil helped and be
careful of the metric bolts. I can't remember if the skid plate was inch or not, but the tank straps were 10 mm.

HTH

Cliff



Adam McLaughlin wrote:

> Who here has dropped the fuel tank of the Bronco II?
>
> I am having lugging, surging problems with mine, and I would like to get
> that fuel tank down to check it out, or replace the pump, but everything
> is so darn heavy! There is about 21 or 20 gallons of gas in there now,
> and I know that the less gas there is in there, the easier this will be,
> but I shouldn't be driving around on a weak gas pump.
>
> 3" suspension lift, 2" bpdy lift make it easy to see on top of it.
>
> I have replaced the high pressure pump, fuel filter, fuel pressure
> regulator and fuel injectors.
>
> Adam
>
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject of the
> message.




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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:49:34 -0500
From: Paul cfw.com>
Subject: 93 Ranger mileage

My 93 4.0/auto Ranger 4x4 is averaging 12 to 14 mpg.
Is this normal?

Well known at the Texaco,

Paul

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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:38:23 -0800
From: "Jon,Jody" direct.ca>
Subject: Re: 93 Ranger mileage



Paul wrote:

> My 93 4.0/auto Ranger 4x4 is averaging 12 to 14 mpg.
> Is this normal?
>
> Well known at the Texaco,
>
> Paul

I've never had a 4.0, but I think there must be a problem, because I've
had 460 V8 4bbls get better mileage than that!!!

Blue coyote



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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:58:29 -0500
From: David Cooley bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: 93 Ranger mileage

At 01:38 PM 3/20/2000, you wrote:


>Paul wrote:
>
> > My 93 4.0/auto Ranger 4x4 is averaging 12 to 14 mpg.
> > Is this normal?
> >
> > Well known at the Texaco,
> >
> > Paul
>
>I've never had a 4.0, but I think there must be a problem, because I've
>had 460 V8 4bbls get better mileage than that!!!


Depends on driving habits... I had a 97 4.0L explorer that got 12 in town
with a heavy foot, 18-19 on the highway if I was easy on it... Now I have a
5.0L V8 97 Explorer that get's 22-23MPG highway between 75 and 80 and
depending on the weight of my size 16's, anywhere from 12 to 16 around town.


===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================


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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:54:48 -0800
From: "Jon,Jody" direct.ca>
Subject: Re: 93 Ranger mileage



David Cooley wrote:

> >I've never had a 4.0, but I think there must be a problem, because I've
> >had 460 V8 4bbls get better mileage than that!!!
>
> Depends on driving habits... I had a 97 4.0L explorer that got 12 in town
> with a heavy foot, 18-19 on the highway if I was easy on it... Now I have a
> 5.0L V8 97 Explorer that get's 22-23MPG highway between 75 and 80 and
> depending on the weight of my size 16's, anywhere from 12 to 16 around town.
>
>

I guess I should have added that the 460 was in a '74 T-bird being driven by a
22 year old (in other words, secondaries spent PLENTY of time wide open), and
still got an average of 15 mpg in town. Admittedly, this was a 2WD vehicle, but
with a carbed 7.5 l (460), and weighing in at over 7000 lbs, you would expect
more from an engine with half the disp. and less weight to push. If 12-14 mpg
is what the 4.0 gets, I think I'd rather use a big block. This seems to show a
16 year old car as more fuel efficient than a fairly new truck. Hmmmm.....

Blue coyote


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

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:13:10 -0500
From: David Cooley bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: 93 Ranger mileage

At 02:54 PM 3/20/2000, you wrote:


>I guess I should have added that the 460 was in a '74 T-bird being driven by a
>22 year old (in other words, secondaries spent PLENTY of time wide open), and
>still got an average of 15 mpg in town. Admittedly, this was a 2WD
>vehicle, but
>with a carbed 7.5 l (460), and weighing in at over 7000 lbs, you would expect
>more from an engine with half the disp. and less weight to
>push. If 12-14 mpg
>is what the 4.0 gets, I think I'd rather use a big block. This seems to
>show a
>16 year old car as more fuel efficient than a fairly new truck. Hmmmm.....


Part of the problem is they stick small displacement engines in heavy
vehicles for federal emissions laws, tax credits etc, and the small engine
is working it's rear off to move the vehicle... Put an engine with a lot
of torque in the same vehicle, with the same gearing, and it takes less
fuel to move the vehicle the same.


===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================


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

From: "Justin Kraynack" epix.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Pumps-In Tank
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:18:04 -0500

Adam,

It started as a problem with the fuel gauge. Would read empty 99% of the
time, then jump up to full and work for a few miles, then back to empty.
Unfortunatly, the float is part of the fuel pump. Well, soon after the
gauge started acting up, the pump failed. When I got back there to take a
look, I noticed that the tank was rotting in the top corner. I changed the
pump and the tank in one drop, but that's better than 2 times.

Justin

>Hi Justin,
>
>Why did you drop your tank? My sender is drifting off, but for now I think
I
>have a problem with the fuel pump in there. Causes me to surge, and then
>stumble.
>
>Adam


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

From: JIMBO01947 aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:45:30 EST
Subject: (no subject)

list

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

End of small-list Digest V2000 #34
**********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassic Truck Mailing List
....


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.