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, 09 May 2000 10:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
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 #64
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 Thu, 04 May 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 064

In This Issue:
Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Carriers and JunkYard
Re: [Re: the saga continues.]
SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert - U.S. House of
Fuel gauge

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

From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
Subject: Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 07:37:29 -0400

?????
Can a 3.08 L/S carrier from an '81 Mustang be adapted to fit 3.73 gears
in an '84 Bronco II?
?????

You would be just as well to go buy a 3.73 rear end from the junk yard.
There is a yard around here (sw MI) that sells them for about $75. These are
from Rangers or BII's.

Chris



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

Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 09:10:55 -0700
From: "Jon,Jody" direct.ca>
Subject: Re: 7.5" carrier ?



Chris Oostveen wrote:

> You would be just as well to go buy a 3.73 rear end from the junk yard.
> There is a yard around here (sw MI) that sells them for about $75. These are
> from Rangers or BII's.

I'm not so lucky out here in western Canada. The wrecking yards RARELY get
anything lower than 3.45 carriers, and they usually want at least $350 for
those.

I have the complete Mustang rear, but I want to try putting the L/S unit into my
housing. I'm wondering if a spacer(ugh!) can be used to put the 3.73 gears on
the 3.08 carrier. At the cost for the proper L/S carrier, I could probably swap
in the 8" rear axle from a '76 Comet that I have lying around....

Blue coyote


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

Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 09:19:24 -0700
From: Adam McLaughlin jps.net>
Subject: Re: 7.5" carrier ?

I wish I knew of such a place. When I lost my rear end another from a junkyard
was $650, used. 1988 Bronco 2, 3.45 LS.

Santa Rosa, CA. (About an hours north of San Francisco)

Adam

Chris Oostveen wrote:

> ?????
> Can a 3.08 L/S carrier from an '81 Mustang be adapted to fit 3.73 gears
> in an '84 Bronco II?
> ?????
>
> You would be just as well to go buy a 3.73 rear end from the junk yard.
> There is a yard around here (sw MI) that sells them for about $75. These are
> from Rangers or BII's.
>
> Chris
>
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject of the
> message.


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

From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
Subject: Re: 7.5" carrier ?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 12:36:53 -0400

Subject: [small-list] Re: 7.5" carrier ?


I wish I knew of such a place. When I lost my rear end another from a
junkyard
was $650, used. 1988 Bronco 2, 3.45 LS.

**** Glad I stayed in MI... Seriously though, they have to be out there. The
yard I go to is smaller, but he has a lot of Ford stuff (Ford guy
owns/operates it), maybe it is just because I am a Ford guy too?!! When I
blew the rear out of my 302 T-Bird I bought another 7.5 for $75 with the
trac-lok in it. I am going to put a 3.73 rear in my 88 Ranger soon and he
told me the same $75 for that too. I did buy an 8.8" (with rear disk) and
all of the front brake stuff from an LSC for $200, so the 8.8 is a little
more. But he knows the value of a return customer, let me tell you I am
there a lot.

Chris



Santa Rosa, CA. (About an hours north of San Francisco)

Adam

Chris Oostveen wrote:

> ?????
> Can a 3.08 L/S carrier from an '81 Mustang be adapted to fit 3.73 gears
> in an '84 Bronco II?
> ?????
>
> You would be just as well to go buy a 3.73 rear end from the junk yard.
> There is a yard around here (sw MI) that sells them for about $75. These
are
> from Rangers or BII's.
>
> Chris
>
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject of the
> message.

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



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

Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 14:04:08 -0700
From: Adam McLaughlin jps.net>
Subject: Carriers and JunkYard

Sound like your got a deal... The local shop that I like here is Called
Westcotts Trucks. I got a 5.8L and an AOD for $1800 there with 55,000 miles on
it. I plan to get it into my old ranger, just as soon as I am not doing 16 units
of college while working 50 hours per week.

I took my $650 3.45 LS rear end down to Papola's and they re-geared it for me. I
got both my front and rear diffs re-geared for $1500. The Dana 28 in the front
had seen better days, so a lot of money was spent to re-build much of it. I went
to 4.10s since I drive a 5 speed with 31" tires. Boy, did that make a
difference. Gears and headers. The two largest differences you can make to a
car.

Time, where is the time?

I'd like to pick up a used, low milage 2.9 just in case the bronco II ever gives
up the ghost. I have to get to school and work, you know!

Adam

Chris Oostveen wrote:

> Subject: [small-list] Re: 7.5" carrier ?
>
> I wish I knew of such a place. When I lost my rear end another from a
> junkyard
> was $650, used. 1988 Bronco 2, 3.45 LS.
>
> **** Glad I stayed in MI... Seriously though, they have to be out there. The
> yard I go to is smaller, but he has a lot of Ford stuff (Ford guy
> owns/operates it), maybe it is just because I am a Ford guy too?!! When I
> blew the rear out of my 302 T-Bird I bought another 7.5 for $75 with the
> trac-lok in it. I am going to put a 3.73 rear in my 88 Ranger soon and he
> told me the same $75 for that too. I did buy an 8.8" (with rear disk) and
> all of the front brake stuff from an LSC for $200, so the 8.8 is a little
> more. But he knows the value of a return customer, let me tell you I am
> there a lot.
>
> Chris
>
> Santa Rosa, CA. (About an hours north of San Francisco)
>
> Adam
>
> Chris Oostveen wrote:
>
> > ?????
> > Can a 3.08 L/S carrier from an '81 Mustang be adapted to fit 3.73 gears
> > in an '84 Bronco II?
> > ?????
> >
> > You would be just as well to go buy a 3.73 rear end from the junk yard.
> > There is a yard around here (sw MI) that sells them for about $75. These
> are
> > from Rangers or BII's.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >


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

Date: 4 May 00 20:21:06 EDT
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: the saga continues.]

"Stephen Bozzone" rockzone.com> wrote:

> I realized i hadn't identified the truck: 1988 Bronco II Eddie Bauer

I was thinking it was '88 2.9 from earlier posts, but good to know.

>
> The problems existed before the tranny rebuild.

Probably rules out errors on the tranny installation then. ;-)

>
> The codes pretty much point to irratic idle and problems with the TPS.

I meant to look those up today at work but fought a stubborn dual air Aerostar
most of the day instead. (Hi Richard!)

> I have used a brown gunky napa sealer in the radiator some months ago. I
> have sealer in a gray bottle now. The brown gunk is all over the cap.
> Would it be safe to put the other one in?

Generally you'll see the 'stop leak' around the cap any time it's used as when
the cap does it's job of releasing pressure it 'looks' like a leak and the
goop goes there. Seriously though, K&W block seal and 'liquid glass' are the
two things I've seen that will actually work for any length of time for
combustion (head) leaks, most other products are OK for sealing small leaks in
the radiator etc. where the pressure is significantly smaller. Either way
plan on replacing the radiator when you swap/rebuild the engine. (Good idea
to do the water pump and fan clutch then as well.)

>
> Would bad heads affect compression?

Almost always depending on how it fails. I'd be interested to see the test
results.

> I want to do a compression test before
> I decide to pull the heads. If compression is bad me and my friend are
> going to put a junk-engine in there.

Not a bad plan.. it'd probably have new (well another..) TPS, module, IAC etc.
svaing the cost of those items for the time being.

> I'll run this one into the ground,
> meanwhile i'll get another 2.9, keep it in my garage and prep it for
> install.

Meaning new gaskets and seals etc? A whole lot easier to change 'em while
it's out!

>
> It's a shame, i spent so much money and it's still not fixed.

Well... assuming an average car payment of $250 if it costs less than $12,000
in repairs over 4 years you're no worse off and haven't had to keep full
coverage insurance on it for another savings of plus depreciation isn't
much of a factor given the age.

> If I had a
> dollar for everyone that said "just get rid of it". Maybe they were right,

I bet $2 each none of 'em ever HAD a B-II either! (We'll both be rich!)

> but I love this truck, I know all it's odds and ends, and this is my
> project/experience/learning car (it's my first).

I remember the experience well. In my case it was a '71 Satellite Sebring
(Road Runner basically) and it followed a similar pattern.. $1200 debt for
tranny work (Replaced 6 mo's later with 4 speed manual), then a major engine
build up etc. etc. all in 1980-82 Dollars. Had I not owned this car though I
probably would not have taken 'auto repair' at the community college and would
be repairing video games/pinballs instead.. I guess it's a good thing. ;-)

>
> Please let me know if you need anything from me (see resume -
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://rockzone.com/mud/resume.shtml),

Might want to check the link; didn't work and niether did the one in the
'about' section. Always good to add another webmaster to my contacts though!
Still a work in progress but http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://custerauto.com is about ready for public
consumption if you care to check it out. (can even learn a bit more about me
from the techs page..)

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: Thu, 04 May 2000 20:58:26 -0400
From: Ken Payne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert - U.S. House of

As some of you may have noticed by the main page of the Ford
Truck Enthusiasts web site, we recently joined SEMA. Just as
FTE got SEMA alerts as a club, it now received additional
alerts as a member. Following is an alert concerning CAFE
Standards:

LEGISLATIVE ALERT

U.S. House of Representatives to Consider Stricter
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards

CAFE mandates that all manufacturers meet fuel economy targets for their
vehicle fleet. For the last several years, the automotive industry has
successfully fought to freeze the fleet fuel economy average at 27.5 mpg for
cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks (SUV’s, pickups, minivans). Now, a few
members of the U.S. House of Representatives, in a misguided attempt to
reduce pollution, gas prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, are
actively seeking to end the current freeze on CAFE standards. If they are
successful, the effects on consumer choice, not to mention vehicle safety,
will be dramatic.

Contact Your Federal Representatives to Oppose Lifting the CAFE Freeze

Higher CAFE Standards will…

Limit consumer choice in purchasing vehicles. Manufacturers will be forced
to make SUVs, light trucks and minivans more expensive, smaller, less
powerful, and less useful in terms of hauling and towing capacity.

Result in less vehicle availability and higher prices. Light trucks and SUV
’s, noted as “gas guzzlers,” will inevitably be phased out in order for
manufacturers to meet increasing government-mandated fuel economy standards.
In addition, CAFE increases in the light truck market will cost consumers up
to $2,750 in higher vehicle prices.

Lead to more deaths on our nation’s highways. Increased CAFE standards for
larger vehicles will force consumers into smaller cars with higher accident
fatality rates. A USA Today analysis found that “46,000 people have died in
crashes they would have survived in bigger heavier cars.” This works out to
“roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained” by driving smaller
cars (USA Today, July 2, 1999).

Higher CAFE Standards will not…

Improve on pollution. CAFE was enacted in 1975 to conserve fuel, not to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The idea that manmade CO2 emissions will
drastically reduce through higher CAFE standards is inaccurate. Even
doubling the fuel economy of new cars in the U.S. would reduce manmade CO2
emissions less than one percent worldwide.

Reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. To date, CAFE and small cars have
done little to reduce gasoline consumption and the U.S. imports more foreign
oil today than when CAFE standards were first imposed.

Save the consumer money at the gas pump with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Total gas consumption depends on factors such as total miles traveled, the
make-up of the overall vehicle fleet and gasoline prices, NOT simply on new
vehicle mileage standards.

Contact your Member of the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose any
raising of CAFE standards. If you need assistance in determining who your
legislators are, this information can be obtained by calling the SEMA
Washington, D.C. office at 202/783-6007 or you can access this information
via the internet at www.sema.org/fedleg/legislatorrequest.

For assistance in turning this alert into a letter to a legislator, go to
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sema.org/consumer/fedleg/ and choose SEMA's link on "How to Lobby
Elected Officials."

Please fax a copy of your letters to us at 202/783-6024 or mail to: SEMA
Washington Office, 1317 F St., NW, Ste. 500, Washington, D.C. 20004, Attn:
Brian Caudill




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

From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
Subject: Fuel gauge
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:45:38 -0400

I know this has been covered before. How do I check to see what is causing
my fuel gauge to not function at all (stays on empty). It is an '88 2wd with
the 2.0, 5 speed. Am I looking for dead circuits or dead sending unit?

Chris O.

'80 Pinto 400-hp 302 in the works
'88 Ranger low rider
misc. others

....


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.