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, 17 May 2000 20:41:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:41:30 -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 #70
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 Tue, 16 May 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 070

In This Issue:
Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my '84 BII is set up
Re: [About to pull my cylinder heads..]
Re: [Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my 84 BII is set up]
Re: [Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my 84 BII is set up]
Re: [Killing the Heater in my Aerostar]
Towing with Explorer
AW: Re: [Killing the Heater in my Aerostar]
Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Re: A/C & R-12 Vs. R-134a Vs. others.

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

From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
Subject: Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:56:55 -0400

Yes it is true. I do not know for sure about Rangers, but they used them in
Pinto's for sure. It may have been used in the Courier and carried over to
the Ranger/BroncoII.

If you have the 4 cyl, it is possible to have the 6 3/4" rear I suppose. It
will be considerably smaller looking in comparison to that of the 7.5.

Chris O.
'88 Ranger Low Rider
'80 Pinto 400hp 302 in the works
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryce Beyler <4xFord bigfoot.com>
To: ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: [small-list] Ford 6.75 axle??


I was looking over the Advance Adapters page on the Bronco II/Ranger swap
stuff (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.advanceadapters.com/BUYERSGUIDE/broran.html) and they
mentioned that up until 1985, a 6.75 inch Ford Axle was used in the rear of
Bronco II and Rangers.

Anyone Know anyvalidity to this?? I've never even heard of a 6.75 inch Ford
axle. Anyone know what one would look like? Would it have been used in my
'84 Bronco II?? I was sure I had a 7.5 with 3.73 open.

Bryce

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



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

Subject: Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:04:05 -0400
From: "Bryce Beyler" <4xFord bigfoot.com>

I have the 2.8L v6 in the BII. IS than any way of telling from a tag on the
axle or a stamping? I'm not so much worried about the power of the engine
(115HP 150Ft-lbs) but more about taking this thing off-road with the 31 inch
mud tires I have on it.

Maybe I need to start looking for an 8.8 from an Exploder sooner than I had
planned.

Bryce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
To: ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:56 PM
Subject: [small-list] Re: Ford 6.75 axle??


> Yes it is true. I do not know for sure about Rangers, but they used them
in
> Pinto's for sure. It may have been used in the Courier and carried over to
> the Ranger/BroncoII.
>
> If you have the 4 cyl, it is possible to have the 6 3/4" rear I suppose.
It
> will be considerably smaller looking in comparison to that of the 7.5.
>
> Chris O.
> '88 Ranger Low Rider
> '80 Pinto 400hp 302 in the works
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bryce Beyler <4xFord bigfoot.com>
> To: ford-trucks.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:35 PM
> Subject: [small-list] Ford 6.75 axle??
>
>
> I was looking over the Advance Adapters page on the Bronco II/Ranger swap
> stuff (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.advanceadapters.com/BUYERSGUIDE/broran.html) and they
> mentioned that up until 1985, a 6.75 inch Ford Axle was used in the rear
of
> Bronco II and Rangers.
>
> Anyone Know anyvalidity to this?? I've never even heard of a 6.75 inch
Ford
> axle. Anyone know what one would look like? Would it have been used in my
> '84 Bronco II?? I was sure I had a 7.5 with 3.73 open.
>
> Bryce
>
> ==========================================================
> 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: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:14:59 -0700
From: Richard lmi.net>
Subject: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar

I have a '92 Aerostar, normal length, 3.0, 2WD. It has rear AC/heater
("Enjoy it while it lasts" Tim Turner).

I want to install a water shutoff valve in one of the heater core hoses
to improve the front passenger cooling.

To those of you who don't know, this is one of those vehicles in which
the heater is always working full blast, the driver's only recourse
being a dopey moveable air flap. Not only does the flap leak around the
edges, but the black heater housing always radiates heat from the
full-on heater core. From my measurements, I get that just the flap
leakage adds at least 8 degrees to the cooled air coming from the vents.
A water valve with associated cables and labor would have cost Ford
about .75 more. Is this stupid or what? I can't blame this only on
Ford, since I've also seen it on other mfrs' vehicles.

I've never found the AC to be really poor, and I'm a guy who likes to
freeze. Yet cool-down can take a while. Meanwhile, Ford has apparently
received quite a few complaints about inadequate AC in these vehicles
because there's an official TSB that includes no less than three
different AC improvements, all of them expensive.

My AC is still filled with very costly R-12 refrigerant. I'll want
to/have to convert to R-134a at some time, which will reduce my cooling
efficiency. That's where I'm going to want all the cooling ability that
Ford removed with their stupid cost shaving.

The most interesting of the three official fixes uses a water diversion
valve kit. This Rube Goldberg device (at customer's expense) consists of
an electric solenoid double valve that shunts the hot water through a
small tube to bypass the heater core. This results in the core staying
cool. The kit also includes a three-way tap to be added to the heater
switch, so that when you put the switch on "Max Cool," the solenoid
flips, shunting the water.

I want to do this the down-home way. I just want to install a valve in
one of the hoses to stop the water flow. Here's the question: this valve
will stop water flow through the heater hoses altogether vs. Ford's
design, which always allows full water flow through the heater hoses. Is
there any reason why this flow should not be blocked?

Vehicles that I'm familiar with all seem to incorporate some type of
bypass hose allowing some water to circulate (if I get it right, it is
to allow the engine thermostat to be affected by water temp and open
sooner than otherwise). Does Ford eliminate this old-time bypass and use
the heater hoses to fill this function? Is this why their afterthought
AC fix uses an elaborate water diversion assembly rather than a simple
water valve?

Richard


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

From: william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:21:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar



Hello Richard,
I have the same complaint about my 99 Ranger !!! ... I think the last time I
checked it, I found about a 8 degree difference
between outside vented air via the vent position and the actual outside
temperature. I too, would like to install a simple
cutoff valve to the heater but am not sure if it will cause a problem. Someone
else asked your question on this board several months ago with the hope that a
Ford mechanic or other knowledgeable person would have a definite answer
as to whether it was safe to do. Unfortunately, no one responded. I hope
someone responds this time.
Regards,
Bill



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

Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:34:29 -0700
From: Jon and Jody direct.ca>
Subject: Re: Ford 6.75 axle??




> If you have the 4 cyl, it is possible to have the 6 3/4" rear I suppose. It
> will be considerably smaller looking in comparison to that of the 7.5.

Yes, some (but not all, I believe) 4 cylinder Rangers came with a 6.75" diff.
No idea if they were ever put into the BII, but I've never seen a BII with
anything but a 2.8 or 2.9. To the best of my knowledge, the 6.75 was only put
behind a 4 cylinder (and it isn't really strong enough for a 2.3, in my
inflated opinion...)

> Chris O.
> '88 Ranger Low Rider
> '80 Pinto 400hp 302 in the works

Using a few Mustang II upgrades, I assume. If you do any welding, a Mustang II
front subframe would probably fit, and let you use OE parts as well...

Blue coyote
"Broncenstein" ('84 BII, 6" susp.,32's,on board air, 4.56 l/s this week)
wife's: ('85 BII Eddie Bauer,235's, steering stabilizer)
"My BABY" ('78 Mustang II, Ghia, 302, T-tops-one of about 200 produced!-with
about 300 King Cobra's, for a total of about 500 T-top Mustang II's)


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

From: "Chris Oostveen" i2k.com>
Subject: Re: Ford 6.75 axle??
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:02:48 -0400

> > '80 Pinto 400hp 302 in the works
>
> Using a few Mustang II upgrades, I assume. If you do any welding, a
Mustang II
> front subframe would probably fit, and let you use OE parts as well...
>
> Blue coyote

Most of the MII parts i will use will bolt directly in (brakes etc). The
rear on the other hand will be 9" with 29.5x15.5x15 tires.:)

Chris


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

From: "4xFord" <4xFord bigfoot.com>
Subject: Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my '84 BII is set up
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:09:34 -0400

This is on an early '84 BII (Built in mid '83), 2.8L v6, C-5 Auto 4x4. The
tag on the axle reads:

WCX B1 3128
3 73 7 5 S604A

I'm not totally sure on the top line (what it all means, and if I copied it
correctly), but the bottom part was what was important.

I eventually plan on going to a 8.8...but I didn't want to have to bump it
up to the highest priority on my BII.

I am totally relieved... they had me going until I could get home and look.

but it looks like the 2wd Rangers got 'em, huh??

Bryce

*** Visit 4xFord's Ranger Page
*** http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bigfoot.com/~4xFord
*** E-Mail 4xFord bigfoot.com
*** ICQ #14760168


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

Date: 16 May 00 20:01:54 EDT
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [About to pull my cylinder heads..]

"Stephen Bozzone" rockzone.com> wrote:
>

> I'm going to do this myself. It's a big job for me, I've never really done
anything like this before.

As the Sunday comic pages say: "U-Can" ;-) (With patience and preserverence
of course!)

>
> I know not to re-use the head bolts. I've got the chilton's manual.

I know people (and shops) that do re-use them, but the whole theory of 'torque
to yield' specs means the bolt will (should) be deformed after tightening and
not re-used. Your call but I replace 'em.

> Any real-world experience?

Usually turns out well; if one turns out to be cracked (fingers crossed for
you!) "World Products" has a replacement head for about the cost of OE that's
redesigned in the failure prone area and it's OK to replace just the one
rather than the pair.

> Can I do it with simple tools?

Might be some 'annoying' nuts and bolts but yes; a swivel here and there maybe
some thought on how to get to some. Short & deep sockets, wrenches, prybar,
blah, blah.. Might need a fuel line disconnect tool (inexpensive version is
fine), access to a torque wrench of course.

> Anything that I should beware of?

Follow the procedure for the tightening of the head bolts to the letter of
course. Rather than buying/renting a 'torque angle guage' for the +120
degrees (or however many it is on the 2.9) it's a lot cheaper to use a simple
protractor from the school supply aisle of the grocery store.

Masking tape, pens, baggies and a digital/polaroid camera can be invaluable
during disassembly to document what goes where when it's time to put it all
back together as it'll be a day or two at the machine shop and you WONT
remember how it all goes... If you have enough space lay things out in the
order they came off to make things easier as well.

Exhaust manifold studs/bolts may break off; if so it might be best to let the
machine shop handle that problem rather than addressing it yourself. Lots of
'P B Blaster' or 'WD-40' can help on the rusties.

> Anything I can really screw up?

Surface prep. That was my downfall on one of my first few major jobs when I
was young... got tired of trying to get ALL the damn gasket residue off but I
learned the hard way it's gotta be done and done without damage to the
surfaces.

Wiring & vacuum hoses. A good place for the tape and marker; most connectors
for the EEC are differing, but a little time spent labeling eveything as you
go can save a LOT of time & headaches later. Expect the plastic vacuum hoses
to break; splice the breaks with the appropriate sized rubber hose.

Collateral damage. Wrenches slip, prybars destroy the item used for leverage
rather than loosening the intended part, hammers always miss the target one
time in three, there's always a hidden bolt/wire etc. Think about the
possibilities as you go; for instance "if this wrench slips what's going to
happen to my fingers?" or "What's next to this thing I'm about to smack with a
hammer that I might accidentally destroy?" (Always an expensive or not in
stock part!)...


Second thoughts yet? Seriously though; dont forget to change the oil
and flush the coolant after you're done to get rid of all traces of gasket
material, mixed fluids etc.

I'm in semi-vacation mode for the e-mail (Read PSX break!) so any questions
might take a day or three to get a reply, but if you still have my # give me a
ring if you get in a jam or want to bounce ideas off my head.

Tim


PS: Do use a good quality gasket set like Fel-Pro or similar.

TT

____________________________________________________________________
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: 16 May 00 20:23:51 EDT
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my 84 BII is set up]

"4xFord" <4xFord bigfoot.com> wrote:
> This is on an early '84 BII (Built in mid '83), 2.8L v6, C-5 Auto 4x4. The
> tag on the axle reads:
>
> WCX B1 3128

Plant/date/etc I think

> 3 73 7 5 S604A

3.73 Non limited slip (would have an 'L' in the space for LS) and 7.5 axle.
AFAIK all B-IIs had the 7.5 as OE. My '85 has 4.10 and seems kinda anemic
after putting 31s on it so I dunno about 3.73s with a stock powerplant.


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: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:32:03 -0700
From: Jon and Jody direct.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ford 6.75 axle - at least ho my 84 BII is set up]



>
> AFAIK all B-IIs had the 7.5 as OE. My '85 has 4.10 and seems kinda anemic
> after putting 31s on it so I dunno about 3.73s with a stock powerplant.

The wife's 4.10 l/s seems a bit anemic with the auto. (O/D) and 235's, but for street use,
I've been running 32's with 3.73, and it isn't too bad. I'm currently swapping in 4.56 gears
and adding l/s or lockers (this is a mostly trail oriented rig), just to ease the strain a
bit. I'm sure it will eventually see at least 35's, so 4.10 just wouldn't enough...

Blue coyote


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

Date: 16 May 00 21:10:24 EDT
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [Killing the Heater in my Aerostar]

Richard lmi.net> wrote:
> I have a '92 Aerostar, normal length, 3.0, 2WD. It has rear AC/heater
> ("Enjoy it while it lasts" Tim Turner).

Ouch.. just replaced a 'black death' system last week and it was $1500 for a
similar model. :-( Condenser, a few lines, compressor etc. Good results
though.

>
> I want to install a water shutoff valve in one of the heater core hoses
> to improve the front passenger cooling.

It can be done, don't know the long term effect if any though.

>
> To those of you who don't know, this is one of those vehicles in which
> the heater is always working full blast,

For whatever reason almost all vehicles are now. Prevent heater core
clogging/corrosion maybe?

> full-on heater core. From my measurements, I get that just the flap
> leakage adds at least 8 degrees to the cooled air coming from the vents.

Also have to add in that the blower motor gets it's cooling air from the HVAC
duct and may add a degree or more in the process as well.

> A water valve with associated cables and labor would have cost Ford
> about .75 more.

Actually I'd think a lot more than .75 but even at $5.00 that'd be well over a
million during the production run of the Aerostar.

> I've never found the AC to be really poor, and I'm a guy who likes to
> freeze. Yet cool-down can take a while.

Unlike the early Caravan the A'star does have a condenser large enough to
handle dual air with (some!) extra capacity, but as you note cool-down isn't
as quick with two heat sources (evaporators) loading the system down. If you
think cool down is slow now then try converting to R-134a; it's even slower.


> Meanwhile, Ford has apparently
> received quite a few complaints about inadequate AC in these vehicles
> because there's an official TSB that includes no less than three
> different AC improvements, all of them expensive.

More than that actually; more like a pagefull of titles ranging from revised
orifice tubes to the strange things.

>
> My AC is still filled with very costly R-12 refrigerant.

Emphasis on the VERY. On aircondition.com there is a link to a site that
updates the price of R-12 daily. Given that there's around a DOZEN of the
leaky quick disconnect fittings on a dual unit A'star it goes away quickly
too. Converting to R-134a makes it worse as the molecular structure is
smaller than R-12 so it leaks out faster in addition to being less effecient
(in a retrofit).

>
> The most interesting of the three official fixes uses a water diversion
> valve kit. This Rube Goldberg device (at customer's expense) consists of
> an electric solenoid double valve that shunts the hot water through a
> small tube to bypass the heater core. This results in the core staying
> cool. The kit also includes a three-way tap to be added to the heater
> switch, so that when you put the switch on "Max Cool," the solenoid
> flips, shunting the water.
>
> I want to do this the down-home way. I just want to install a valve in
> one of the hoses to stop the water flow. Here's the question: this valve
> will stop water flow through the heater hoses altogether vs. Ford's
> design, which always allows full water flow through the heater hoses. Is
> there any reason why this flow should not be blocked?
>
> Vehicles that I'm familiar with all seem to incorporate some type of
> bypass hose allowing some water to circulate (if I get it right, it is
> to allow the engine thermostat to be affected by water temp and open
> sooner than otherwise). Does Ford eliminate this old-time bypass and use
> the heater hoses to fill this function? Is this why their afterthought
> AC fix uses an elaborate water diversion assembly rather than a simple
> water valve?

Okay.. how about this Rube Goldberg down home fix? Get a control valve for a
vacuum controlled heater system ('71 Road Runner?), a vacuum solenoid for EGR
(85 B-II?); plumb the control valve into the heater hose and wire the solenoid
to be energized during A/C operation and close the valve via vacuum. I've got
a few customers that have opted for a ball valve in the heater hose in various
'odd' vehicles and haven't seen any bad effects other than them coming in
twice a year to have it opened/closed but I still cant say for sure if it's
harmfull in any given application.

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.

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

From: "Mark Biederbeck" email.msn.com>
Subject: Towing with Explorer
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 20:37:35 -0700

I am wondering if anyone has any significant towing experience with an
Explorer. I currently have a Ranger that I need to upgrade for passenger
room. I have a 3000 lb boat (fully loaded) and will haul 4 passengers plus
some gear. Want to take extended trips, as far as from Portland, OR to Lake
Powell so lots of hills and high temperatures. Am I asking for trouble? If
anyone has had any good success, did you make any modifications to the
cooling system, oil system or transmission. Intended model would be about a
92-94, automatic, 3.73 gears (maybe 4.10), four door.

I appreciate any help you can give me.
Mark Biederbeck



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

From: ThomasUcen premiereworld.de
Subject: AW: Re: [Killing the Heater in my Aerostar]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:15:27 +0200

Hi,

here in Germany, R12 has been banned. Last year, when I had a leaky hose
(due to Ford's construction flaw), I had my system refilled with something
called Iseceon (I think R147a). It's a good substitute for R12, no
conversions of the system are necessary. It cools like crazy. However, it
cools so much that the evaporator freezes up to the point where no air from
the fan can pass through. So on longer rides, once in a while, I have to
turn the A/C off (to Vent) and wait till the ice melts. The A/C lines get
quite iced up and the water puddle under the parked car is always quite
large. But the cooling effect is much better than with R12.
I wouldn't recommend R134a because a) you have to convert your system ($$$)
and b) as Tim mentioned, it won't last. At the A/C shop last year I talked
to owners of quite new cars who already had to get their system refilled and
they were not very enthusiastic about the cooling effect. I don't know
whether Iseceon has the same problem with escaping, so far it lasts.
Comparison: my '79 Buick still has the original R12 filling and the A/C
works great!
The price for the single unit Iseceon filling was around $100.
As for the rear unit: I am quite sorry I don't have it although it has a bad
reputation. Since the kids travel in the 3rd row, they complain about the
heat in the summer and they're cold in the winter. I already thought about
getting a long heater hose and connect it to somewhere in the front and run
it to the 3rd row seat. Would that work? What's the smartest way to do it?

Tom Ucen
1993 Aerostar 3.0L Ext.
Munich, Germany

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

From: "Joe Merchak" eclipse.net>
Subject: Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:28:49 -0400

Bill

I have a 99 Ranger and it came from the factory with a cut off valve in the
heater hose. Mine is controlled only when you turn the temp control from
the cold section to a warm section.

-----Original Message-----
From: small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:21 PM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar




Hello Richard,
I have the same complaint about my 99 Ranger !!! ... I think the last time
I
checked it, I found about a 8 degree difference
between outside vented air via the vent position and the actual outside
temperature. I too, would like to install a simple
cutoff valve to the heater but am not sure if it will cause a problem.
Someone
else asked your question on this board several months ago with the hope that
a
Ford mechanic or other knowledgeable person would have a definite answer
as to whether it was safe to do. Unfortunately, no one responded. I hope
someone responds this time.
Regards,
Bill


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



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

From: william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:36:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar



Thats interesting !!!! I'll have to check mine again to see if it's there
..... Thanks for the info





Joe Merchak eclipse.net> on 05/17/2000 09:28:49 AM

Please respond to small-list ford-trucks.com

To: small-list ford-trucks.com
cc: (bcc: William R. Hickey/USA/BAC)
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar



Bill

I have a 99 Ranger and it came from the factory with a cut off valve in the
heater hose. Mine is controlled only when you turn the temp control from
the cold section to a warm section.

-----Original Message-----
From: small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:21 PM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar




Hello Richard,
I have the same complaint about my 99 Ranger !!! ... I think the last time
I
checked it, I found about a 8 degree difference
between outside vented air via the vent position and the actual outside
temperature. I too, would like to install a simple
cutoff valve to the heater but am not sure if it will cause a problem.
Someone
else asked your question on this board several months ago with the hope that
a
Ford mechanic or other knowledgeable person would have a definite answer
as to whether it was safe to do. Unfortunately, no one responded. I hope
someone responds this time.
Regards,
Bill


==========================================================
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.



-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: application/octet-stream
-- File: att1.eml



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

From: "Joe Merchak" eclipse.net>
Subject: Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:56:21 -0400

Yea you cant miss it, its about 6" from the heater core hose nipple.

-----Original Message-----
From: small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 9:36 AM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar




Thats interesting !!!! I'll have to check mine again to see if it's there
..... Thanks for the info





Joe Merchak eclipse.net> on 05/17/2000 09:28:49 AM

Please respond to small-list ford-trucks.com

To: small-list ford-trucks.com
cc: (bcc: William R. Hickey/USA/BAC)
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar



Bill

I have a 99 Ranger and it came from the factory with a cut off valve in the
heater hose. Mine is controlled only when you turn the temp control from
the cold section to a warm section.

-----Original Message-----
From: small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:small-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
william.hickey bankofamerica.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:21 PM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [small-list] Re: Killing the Heater in my Aerostar




Hello Richard,
I have the same complaint about my 99 Ranger !!! ... I think the last time
I
checked it, I found about a 8 degree difference
between outside vented air via the vent position and the actual outside
temperature. I too, would like to install a simple
cutoff valve to the heater but am not sure if it will cause a problem.
Someone
else asked your question on this board several months ago with the hope that
a
Ford mechanic or other knowledgeable person would have a definite answer
as to whether it was safe to do. Unfortunately, no one responded. I hope
someone responds this time.
Regards,
Bill


==========================================================
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.



-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: application/octet-stream
-- File: att1.eml


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



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

Date: 17 May 00 21:39:52 EDT
From: Tim Turner netscape.net>
Subject: Re: A/C & R-12 Vs. R-134a Vs. others.

ThomasUcen premiereworld.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here in Germany, R12 has been banned.

Hmm! Banned as in unavailable or just that production ceased in 1995 as with
all other Countries that signed the Montreal protocol?

> Last year, when I had a leaky hose
> (due to Ford's construction flaw),

The usual leaky 'spring lock' connection I assume; Chrysler, Hyundai and
others use this widget now also. The best fix is to install new o-rings and
use a specially designed clamp around the whole connection.

> I had my system refilled with something
> called Iseceon (I think R147a).

I'm not at all familliar with it; here in the states I dont see it (or R-147a)
listed under the EPA SNAP substitutes for R-12
(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/macssubs.html). A quick search didn't
yield any results either; is there a web site about it that you know of?

> It's a good substitute for R12, no
> conversions of the system are necessary.

I don't know about there, but here any time a system is changed to another gas
the fittings MUST BE CHANGED to the type unique for that refrigerant to
prevent contamination of supplies and mixing (droppping-in) is expressly not
allowed for the same reason. In many of the newer R-12 systems the drier was
compatible with R-134a so it too would require no conversion other than the
fittings, oil and new label denoting the gas used. Usually the drier gets
replaced during a conversion but that's due to other repairs also being made
at the same time... I've done several 'hack' conversions for experimentation
and favors with doing nothing other than dumping in some ester oil and
shooting in the R-134a; worked fairly well and some are still going 3 years
later.


> It cools like crazy. However, it
> cools so much that the evaporator freezes up to the point where no air from
> the fan can pass through. So on longer rides, once in a while, I have to
> turn the A/C off (to Vent) and wait till the ice melts. The A/C lines get
> quite iced up and the water puddle under the parked car is always quite
> large. But the cooling effect is much better than with R12.


I can do that with R-134a or other gasses.. what happened was the technician
involved reset the cycling switch too low during the 'non-conversion'. I had
one today blowing 28F (at 87F OAT) by going too far. ;-) Look on the drier
(passenger side by the firewall) and you'll see a small device with two wires
on it; unplug the connector and you'll see a small screw head in the middle of
the switch. Turn the switch 1/4 turn clockwise, reconnect and see if the
freezing goes away; if not keep going in 1/4 turn increments until it does.

> I wouldn't recommend R134a because a) you have to convert your system ($$$)

Actually... most conversions I do cost LESS than the repair would have if
staying with R-12 due to the cost of R-12 being some 7 times greater than
R-134a. I wouldn't suggest converting a system that was working fine just to
do it, but when it quits it often makes sense to do so for cost reasons unless
it's one of a handfull of vehicles that needs condenser upgrades or additional
fan area.

> and b) as Tim mentioned, it won't last.

A) It's molecular structure is smaller and leaks at (guessing) 2-3X the rate
R-12 would, but *IF* all is well there aren't any leaks.

B) The high pressure side of the system will be operating some 10-15% higher
(assuming it's done right) with the resulting extra load on the compessor. If
it's in good shape all is OK, but an 'iffy' compressor might take a dump from
the extra pressure.


> At the A/C shop last year I talked
> to owners of quite new cars who already had to get their system refilled

I'm seeing lots of '96s this year and some '97 & '98s already. To some
defense sytems are a lot smaller than they used to be; 10 years ago 3-4 Lbs
was common, but now a 2 Lb system is large. (In other words it used to take a
Pound to affect cooling, but now a 1/4-1/2 Lb. will.)

> they were not very enthusiastic about the cooling effect.

A system designed for R-134a will equal or exceed R-12 with the exception of
the time it takes for the inital cool down of the cabin when operating
properly. A *properly* converted system will be about the same until outside
temperature and humidity get high and then roughly 3-7 degrees (F) higher than
R-12. (Hell.. if it's 100F and 100% RH I'm going to like that 70F out the vent
better than outside!)

> I don't know
> whether Iseceon has the same problem with escaping, so far it lasts.

One note would be that R-12 & R-134a are 'single molecule' gasses; most
substitutes are made of several, (blends) meaning that it changes composition
as the various gasses leak out at differing rates (In theory; real world
results are still pending). Here in the US any substitutes that contain R-22
also require replacement of hoses with ones containing a lining (barrier
hoses).


> Comparison: my '79 Buick still has the original R12 filling and the A/C
> works great!

WOW!!! That's amazing. You got a good one there. :-)

> they're cold in the winter. I already thought about
> getting a long heater hose and connect it to somewhere in the front and run....


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.