Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:04:24 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-small-digest)
To: fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #15
Reply-To: fordtrucks-small ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-small-digest Thursday, January 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 015



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Ranger, Explorer & Bronco 2
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks-small-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Once piece driveshaft [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Bronco II [Bruce Krohn ]
Bronco II [Bruce Krohn ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Thom Cheney ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Thom Cheney ]
Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #14 [Bill Funk ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Uri Blumenthal ]
CB Antennas again... ["Alan Heaberlin" ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Thom Cheney ]
Ranger V8 [David ]
Re: Ranger V8 [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Ranger V8 ["Michael Winkler" ]
Re: Ranger V8 [Gardner ]
Re: Rnager Lift ["Lare/Eric" ]
Fwd: faulty speedometer [M A Bolch ]
ADMIN: 1997+, java chat, expenses and more [Ken Payne
ADMIN: Shockwarehouse [Ken Payne ]
Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #14 ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: Ranger V8 [FastRngXLT ]
Re: Ranger V8 [FastRngXLT ]
Re: Ranger V8 [Diana Slyter ]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:19:51 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Once piece driveshaft

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:42:01 PST "Mike Wiatt"
writes:
Their are 3 solns to this problem:
>
> 1)Replace the shaft with a one piece unit (the best)
> 2)Make a new crossmember for the center support bearing(OK)
> 3)Try to lower the center support with shims(It works)


Does any one know of anyone that makes or sells a one piece drive shaft
for the Ranger? I have been thinking about it for some time now.



silent.bob juno.com
95 Ranger 2.3L, SVO OHC
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Site)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:49:14 -0600
From: Bruce Krohn
Subject: Bronco II

Hello. I have a 1987 Bronco II with the Touch Drive 4x4 system. The trouble
is the 4x4 system doesn't work. I have checked and checked over and over all
the wiring tests possible, including continuity and voltages from top to
bottom according to the service manual and cannot find anything wrong. I
replaced the transfer case module, electric transfer case motor, the
overhead hard switch assembly, and still doesn't work. I checked the
transfer case motor for movement and it works fine tested on the bench. I am
able to manually move the transfer case selector shaft and engage it into
4x4 with the electric motor off of it, but that is unpractical to have to
crawl under the vehicle each time you want to use it. I checked all the
obvious things like fuses and connectors over and over again, and they all
checked out fine. So, last resort I took the vehicle to my local Ford dealer
to have them fix it. Those dummies are as worthless as you know what on a
boar. They couldn't find anything wrong either. So, here I am screaming for
help. This so called "Touch Drive" was definitely NOT one of Ford's better
ideas. In fact I feel they failed miserably. I must be missing something
here. Is there a selenoid, relay, fusible link, or something associated
directly with this system somewhere under the hood or under the dash that I
am failing to find? If so, the service manual doesn't mention it, and the
dummies at our Ford dealer aren't aware of it either. I've been a life-long
owner of Ford cars and trucks, but this one has really gotten me p*s*ed off.
Please, any help would sure be appreciated and acknowledged gratefully.
Thanks

Bruce Krohn

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:51:11 -0600
From: Bruce Krohn
Subject: Bronco II

Hello. I have a 1987 Bronco II with the Touch Drive 4x4 system. The trouble
is the 4x4 system doesn't work. I have checked and checked over and over all
the wiring tests possible, including continuity and voltages from top to
bottom according to the service manual and cannot find anything wrong. I
replaced the transfer case module, electric transfer case motor, the
overhead hard switch assembly, and still doesn't work. I checked the
transfer case motor for movement and it works fine tested on the bench. I am
able to manually move the transfer case selector shaft and engage it into
4x4 with the electric motor off of it, but that is unpractical to have to
crawl under the vehicle each time you want to use it. I checked all the
obvious things like fuses and connectors over and over again, and they all
checked out fine. So, last resort I took the vehicle to my local Ford dealer
to have them fix it. Those dummies are as worthless as you know what on a
boar. They couldn't find anything wrong either. So, here I am screaming for
help. This so called "Touch Drive" was definitely NOT one of Ford's better
ideas. In fact I feel they failed miserably. I must be missing something
here. Is there a selenoid, relay, fusible link, or something associated
directly with this system somewhere under the hood or under the dash that I
am failing to find? If so, the service manual doesn't mention it, and the
dummies at our Ford dealer aren't aware of it either. I've been a life-long
owner of Ford cars and trucks, but this one has really gotten me p*s*ed off.
Please, any help would sure be appreciated and acknowledged gratefully.
Thanks

Bruce Krohn

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:09:31 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting

Jerad Heffner wrote:
>
> I've got the antenna installed now. One more question: what is an average range
> for a CB? What is good range?
>
> I put a 48" fiberglass on the rear bumper on the driver's side. Looks great;
> performancewise? I can't be sure yet, but I get between 1/2 - 2 miles on
> receiving. Yesterday, my father on a 102" metal whip and I had trouble sending
> and receiving at a 3/4 mile distance with the same radio. Shouldn't it be farther
> than that? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Do you think it might be possible to
> put dual 48" fiberglass antennas on the rear bumper and get better reception?
> There is a person here in my town who has a powerful base, and i can pick it up
> quite well. She is about 2-3 miles from my house, maybe more. I have yet to use
> the signal strength to track her down! Hehehe. This is the farthest I think I
> have been able to receive. Transmitting may be different; I haven't talked to
> her!
>
> Opinions? Suggestions? Scoldings?
>


As I recall, CB is limited to sight or about 2 miles, whichever is
less. Check the wattage of your tranceiver. I can't remember what the
max is... I think 5 watts. Anything less will get lower your
reception/transmission area. There are boosters available.... but they
are a bit illegal.


good luck,

TC

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:31:23 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting

Thom Cheney wrote:

> max is... I think 5 watts. Anything less will get lower your
> reception/transmission area.


...what the heck does that mean? typing spasm...sorry

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:33:14 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #14

> From: Jerad Heffner
> Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting
>
> I've got the antenna installed now. One more question: what is an
> average range
> for a CB? What is good range?
>
> I put a 48" fiberglass on the rear bumper on the driver's side. Looks
> great;
> performancewise? I can't be sure yet, but I get between 1/2 - 2 miles
> on
> receiving. Yesterday, my father on a 102" metal whip and I had
> trouble sending
> and receiving at a 3/4 mile distance with the same radio. Shouldn't
> it be farther
> than that? Did I make a mistake somewhere? Do you think it might be
> possible to
> put dual 48" fiberglass antennas on the rear bumper and get better
> reception?
> There is a person here in my town who has a powerful base, and i can
> pick it up
> quite well. She is about 2-3 miles from my house, maybe more. I have
> yet to use
> the signal strength to track her down! Hehehe. This is the farthest
> I think I
> have been able to receive. Transmitting may be different; I haven't
> talked to
> her!
>
> Opinions? Suggestions? Scoldings?
>
> Thanx
> Jerad Heffner

1/2 to 2 miles is not good range in flat terrain.
I have a Wilson K on the roof of our '92 Explorer, and can reach out
over 13 miles, stock.
No, putting dual 48" antennas on your bumper won't help - duals need to
be further apart than your truck is wide, even at the mirrors. As it is,
they will actuall make your performance worse.
That powerful base could well be putting out over 500 watts... great for
talking long distances, but not so good when it comes to listening to
someone at the same range.
It really seems that there may be something wrong with your setup. I can
put a ground plane antenna on my patio roof, use a car CB with a 12v
supply, and talk over 8 miles in the city of Phoenix. Maybe you could
have it checked?
The best spot for an antenna is in the middle of the roof, although a
lot of people don't want to put one there. Anywhere else has major
drawbacks, either with directionality or lack of groundplane, or (like
your bumper mount) both. Height equals range, as a rule.
If one just wants to look cool, of course, none of this matters. Heck,
put a neon light on top, so it will light up when you talk! ;-)

Bill Funk

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:47:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Blumenthal
Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting

Thom Cheney says:
> > I've got the antenna installed now. One more question: what is an
> > average range for a CB? What is good range?

Should be between a few miles and two dozen miles.

> > I can't be sure yet, but I get between 1/2 - 2 miles on receiving.

No offence, but I suspect your antenna sucks.

> As I recall, CB is limited to sight or about 2 miles, whichever is
> less.

As I recall, VHF is line-of sight. However, CB is HF (somewhere near
29MHz) and it definitely is BEYOND line-of-sight. Two miles doesn't
sound all that great.

> Check the wattage of your tranceiver. I can't remember what the
> max is... I think 5 watts.

Yes, 5W is the legal max. But instead of checking your wattage,
double-check your antenna. This is what ultimately determines
your range: how good the antenna is and how well it is placed.

> Anything less will get lower your reception/transmission area.

This is the first time when I hear that transmitter power increases
your reception area. (:-)

> There are boosters available.... but they are a bit illegal.

Not to mention that they suck (:-).
- --
Regards,
Uri uri watson.ibm.com
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-


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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:50:06 -0800
From: "Alan Heaberlin"
Subject: CB Antennas again...

Lets break CB radio down into bite size pieces:
Transmitter-Sends modulated electrical energy (signal) at the desired
frequency to...

Transmission line (coax)--which if properly matched (impedance) to the
transmitter will move the signal to the...

Antenna--which must alo be properly matched or electrically resonant to the
other components.

Resonance is expressed as standing wave ratio (SWR) and simply is a function
of how much signal is converted to electromagnetic radiation by the antenna.
Any current that is not converted by the resonant circuit (because of
impedence mismatch) is reflected back to the transmitter and converted to
heat. The antenna must also be cut to the correct electrical length
L=234/f(mhz). a 1/4 wave antenna for 11 meters (CB) is about 9 feet. The
exact length from channel 1 to channel 40 varies by a couple of inches. Most
tune for the middle and compromise on the rest. Truckers will have their
antennas tuned for the frequency they use most.
If your SWR is excessively high very little signal leaves the antenna and
the reflected energy may damage the final stage of your transmitter. Better
radios (expensive) will automatically lower the output power so no damage
results. Some also use an antenna warning light (idiot light).
The antenna also serves to convert incoming signals from electromagnetic
radiation into modulated electrical energy (current) and through the same
transmission line to your ...

Receiver--which is essentially a independant component of your radio. In the
old days, very often (for many good reasons) the receiver was a completely
separate piece of equipment. The sensitivity of the receiver and the amount
of loss in your transmission line primarily determines your ability to
receive. Many CBers will use very high power on a margial quality
transceiver--everybody in the world can hear them but they cannot hear
someone at the end of their street. This is what is known as an "Alligator
Station." All mouth and no ears.

Once you have determined that you are transmitting and receiving efficiently
then you must consider your...

Propogation--This being what happens to your signal after it leaves the
antenna. At frequencies below 30 Mhz (CB being 27Mhz) the atmosphere has the
most influence on the effective range of your transmission. For the past
several years CB has been limited to very short ranges based on the Ground
Wave transmission. When solar activity increases (as it is now) your signal
will bounce off the ionized layers of the atmosphere and CBers in Australia
will make fun of the way you speak English.
The height of your antenna, the ground plane (where your antenna is
grounded-usually your bumber or car top) and your antenna design determines
your Radiation Pattern or the direction the strongest part of your signal is
directed. I won't even tell you about departure angle.

Now that you know a lot more about radio theory than you really wanted to,
lets talk practical.

Buy the best equipment you can afford and don't expect cheap stuff to
deliver the performance you desire. You can't polish a turd!

Eliminate your losses. Keep your coax short. Every foot of coax uses energy
from your signal. Cheap coax uses more, expensive coax uses
less--absolutely! Don't let anybody tell you you have to have 18 feet or
some multiple of your wavelength for a radio that is putting out 4 watts.
When you are running a kilowatt and you have a 300 foot feedline we'll talk
about that then.

Buy an SWR meter--a good one. It will also have a power meter to impress the
girls with. When you do anything to your radio always check the SWR of your
antenna. Mount it under the dash if you want.

Buy a good antenna and mount it up high--or mount it where you want and
don't expect miracles. Dual antennas (co-phased) like you see on big trucks
just won't work on anything less than an 8 foot separation. Plus you are
powering twice the coax and doubling your electrical losses from the
connectors and radiators (antennas) and getting a good match can be hard. I
know it looks cool and all. If you gotta have two antennas use one for a
scanner or something (antenna ball).

Educate yourself. Every library in the world has great ham radio books.
Anything they say for 10 meters will generally apply to CB. Don't screw
around with high power--it ain't worth it. Popular Communications Magazine
has good stuff on CB every month. Make friends with the radio guy at your
local truck stop. Pay him some money once in a while when you can't figure
it out. Find people who have killer rigs and do what they did. When you get
it right--leave it alone.

Radio enthusiasts have been fighting about this stuff since the days of
Marconi. Antennas are a black art and I'm sure someone will argue with just
about everything I've said. However, I am an Amateur Radio operator, I do
use CB radio also and all my radio equipment works dead nuts! I followed
all the advice I just gave you.
I hope this helps. Feel free to contact me directly for more involved
discussion. amh ccis.com

Buffalo Al
KE6KIN

1986 Ranger 4X4
1994 Explorer Sport RED

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:00:01 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting

Uri Blumenthal wrote:
>
sound all that great.
>
> > Check the wattage of your tranceiver. I can't remember what the
> > max is... I think 5 watts.
>
> Yes, 5W is the legal max. But instead of checking your wattage,
> double-check your antenna. This is what ultimately determines
> your range: how good the antenna is and how well it is placed.
>
> > Anything less will get lower your reception/transmission area.
>
> This is the first time when I hear that transmitter power increases
> your reception area. (:-)
>

sorry if I leant any misinformation.... my experience with CB's goes way
back to high school, right after they made 40 channels the norm. I
think my first (of 2) CB's was a 23 channel cobra. We didn't get great
range, but our terrain was kinda bumpy. VHF or HF ...whatever, CB
doesn't like hills!

TC

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:26:08 -0500
From: David
Subject: Ranger V8

Does anyone know if Ford has any plans to relese a Ranger with a V8 in the
future? I think that Ford is lacking in Hp for the Ranger. If I'm not
mistaken the 4.0L has 160 HP. The S-10 has 190 and the Dakota V6 has 175
but also comes with a 220 HP V8. I've got a friend with a Dakota V8 and it
can kick some serious a**!

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:01:02 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

David wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if Ford has any plans to relese a Ranger with a V8 in the
> future? I think that Ford is lacking in Hp for the Ranger. If I'm not
> mistaken the 4.0L has 160 HP. The S-10 has 190 and the Dakota V6 has 175
> but also comes with a 220 HP V8. I've got a friend with a Dakota V8 and it
> can kick some serious a**!

Considering that Toyota can build a 4 cyl. engine that makes 160 hp, I
think Ford outght to tinker with the 4.0 and make it right.

TC

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:24:10 +0100
From: "Michael Winkler"
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

There a two different 4.0l engines:
1) One with 160HP built from 1990 up to now used in Areostar, Ranger and
Explorer
2) The new SOHC 4.0l engine with 204HP buiilt from 1996 up to now, for '96
MY Explorer and '98 Ranger as an option
Both engines are built in Ford's Cologne engine plant in Germany.

Michael
- ----------
> Von: Thom Cheney
> An: fordtrucks-small ListService.net
> Betreff: Re: Ranger V8
> Datum: Donnerstag, 15. Januar 1998 00:01
>
> David wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know if Ford has any plans to relese a Ranger with a V8 in
the
> > future? I think that Ford is lacking in Hp for the Ranger. If I'm not
> > mistaken the 4.0L has 160 HP. The S-10 has 190 and the Dakota V6 has
175
> > but also comes with a 220 HP V8. I've got a friend with a Dakota V8 and
it
> > can kick some serious a**!
>
> Considering that Toyota can build a 4 cyl. engine that makes 160 hp, I
> think Ford outght to tinker with the 4.0 and make it right.
>
> TC
> +---------Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Ranger, Explorer & Bronco 2--------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks-small listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:50:39 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

David wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if Ford has any plans to relese a Ranger with a V8 in the
> future? I think that Ford is lacking in Hp for the Ranger. If I'm not
> mistaken the 4.0L has 160 HP. The S-10 has 190 and the Dakota V6 has 175
> but also comes with a 220 HP V8. I've got a friend with a Dakota V8 and it
> can kick some serious a**!
>
> +---------Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Ranger, Explorer & Bronco 2--------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks-small listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

The Dakota also is available(in spring) with a 250 hp 360 (5.9L)! I
either plan to install a 5.0 in my ranger or buying a new dakota

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:43:39 -0500
From: "Lare/Eric"
Subject: Re: Rnager Lift

That's what I figured ..... checked them in this fashion recently (along w/
tie rod ends, bushings, etc.) .... u-joints seem fine, but the radius arm
bushings seem a bit shoddy (little loose, cracking, just all-around bad
looking) .... I think I'm gonna hold off, though, cause I intend to put
lengthened arms on in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks fitzy,

Eric S. - '94 Splash SC 4x4 4.0L


- -----Original Message-----
From: mark fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Rnager Lift


>To chec the front u joints, make sure they're not under load and just
>reach up and give em a shake. you'll feel the play if there's any,
>plus, it'll sound almost like a clunking noise....very distinct.
>Putting the 302 in the ranger definitely pointed out the weak links in
>the ranger suspension, but then again, who wouldn't expect almost
>doubling the engine capacity to have that effect?:) I love
>it....wouldn't trade it for the world..well....that is except for
>maybe a big block or something farther down the road:)
>
>fitzy
>
>---Lare/Eric wrote:
>>
>> Thanks fitzy .... what sort of 'check' for the front end do you
>speak of?
>>
>> What should I look for in worn (or nearly worn-out) u-joints?
>>
>> I must admit that my drivetrain would definitely not see the stress
>that
>> yours would, since I am dealing w/ a 4.0L (that I rarely find a
>reason to
>> push to its limits - I save the pushing for the boony-bashers and dirt
>> bikes) - as opposed to your 302. I suppose it stands to reason that
>those
>> skimpy u-joints in the Dana 35 TTB would be the weak link in this
>> drivetrain.
>>
>> Eric S. - '94 Splash SC 4x4 4.0L
>

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:05:05 EST
From: M A Bolch
Subject: Fwd: faulty speedometer

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --part0_884826305_boundary
Content-ID:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


- --part0_884826305_boundary
Content-ID:
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: M A Bolch
Return-path:
To: fordrucks-small Listservice.net
Subject: faulty speedometer
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:03:09 EST
Organization: AOL (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.aol.com)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hello I have a 94 Ranger with a 4.0 and 5speed manual transmission . I just
bought the truck used with 45,000 miles . I now have a problem with the
speedometer . It seems to work ok until i get to aprox. 55 mph then it takes a
quick jump up about 5 to 10 mph . you can set the cruise at 2000 rpm in 5th
which i think is somewhere around 60 mph , it may show 65 or 70 or hit a bump
and it may jump up to 75. It always seems to read fast not slow . my thoughts
were if the cable needed lube etc. that it would drag and read slow , however
it seems to read fast . any thoughts or ideas on expense to replace sending
unit or speedometer ?
thanks Mark

- --part0_884826305_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 22:56:30 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: 1997+, java chat, expenses and more

The web site vote for the 1997+ list expired last week. The
results:

For new list: 73%
Against: 21%
Don't Care: 4%

The 1997+ F150 & 1998+ F250/350 list should come alive this
weekend. As a test it will use SmartList/Procmail instead
of Majordomo for its list server software. If it works out
okay all the lists will be moved over (in about a month).
Majordomo takes up a lot of our time with administration.

Subscribe instructions will be announced this weekend and a web
site subscribe form will be place on the web pages.

Finally got the Java server enabled for the web site. I'm in
the process of getting the Java chat running now. Just in the
nick of time for our 1st anniversary chat this Saturday.
Announcement will be made when it's functional.

I hate discussing what I'm about to discuss but....

We have about 10 static cling window stickers left.
For those that don't know what these are, see them on the web site.
Peggy is working on a T-shirt design but it won't go to press
until the stickers are all gone (more stickers will be printed).
Sale of these stickers help support our expenses.

Its been a while since I've posted our expenses and I know that
early on I promised to post these every now and then....
Our expenses are:

$ 24.95/month - web server 1 (www.ford-trucks.com) + 1 time $30 charge
$ 7.00/month - web server 2 (www.fordtrucks.com) + 1 time $30 charge
(already bringing in 200+ extra visitors/day)
$ 20.00/month - mailing lists (soon to be $25/month)
$100.00 Internic fee for www.ford-trucks.com for 2 years
$100.00 Internic fee for www.fordtrucks.com for 2 years
$187.00 printer setup, stamps and envelopes for window stickers and
mailing
$ 20.00 registration fee for keyboard macro utility (this is a must
for any mailing list administration)
$ 50.00 banner ad script
$139.00 scanner - prior to this purchase we used a scanner at Kinkos
at it was costing us $18/hour. This scanner has been a must
given the number of photos mailed to us.
$ 70.00 business license (any day now). This is a must. We have
grown beyond the "hobby" stage.
$ 30.00/month second phone line - we now spend 1-4 hours daily
administering the lists/web site and a second line is a must
if we expect to have anyone get in touch with us.
$ 21.00 every 6 months for the PO box.
$ ??.?? numerous small misc expenses we incur

As you can see our costs are significant. With our ads we're breaking
even (barely). If you wish to support our efforts please purchase one
of our stickers or the parts source guide (this is a great book);
information is on the web site. We could really use support through
the purchase of stickers/books as we just paid another $140 fee for
another 6 months of web service - current paid up time is credited
to the 6 months. Additionally, we plan to print out "Tried, True and
Ford Blue - www.ford-trucks.com" cards to give out at the Pigeon
Forge F100 Nationals - this is a minor expense but it does add to the
bottom line.

We no longer take donations unless you want to inflate the $3 sticker
price and I'm not sure what our status would be with donations. Once
again, I'd like to thank everyone who has helped with donations last
year - your support has helped tremendously.

We're in the process of making wholesale arrangements with a
Ford trucks reproduction parts company. We hope to offer books,
manuals, stickers, underhood tags, owner's manuals, guides and
more at a discount in order to support the site. For the newer
truck owners - we're working on other arrangements.

As always, when our income goes up we try to increase our services for
the members. I believe our track record shows sincerity in this
respect. Speaking of which, in addition to the java chat and new
list the free web space I announced earlier with be available to
members for non-commercial Ford truck sites within 2 weeks.
You'll get full password access so you can upload your pages without
having to send them to me first. Announcement will be made when
this is ready.

Returning you to our regular program... please send any discussion
concerning these items directly to: kpayne mindspring.com
This announcement interrupts the list and talks enough about money
without having a group discussion about it. However, if you feel
you have something to say on these topics that's relevant to the
group feel free to do so.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:26:03 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Shockwarehouse

Dear Ford Truck Enthusiasts:

We have a new advertiser on our web site. As we did for our
other advertisers, we're going to make a brief announcement
for 2 days. Please show your appreciation to them for helping
to support the web site and lists by checking out their site:

http://www.ford-trucks.com/shockwarehouse.shtml
(This is an "anchor" page that will forward you to theirs)

Shockwarehouse sells shocks, struts, cartridge inserts,
strut bearing plates, load levelers, air shocks,
“Muscle” Elastomer Springs and a bunch of other suspension
related items.

We would like to have them know that you heard about them via
the Ford Truck Enthusiasts group.

Now returning you to our regularly scheduled program...

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:35:27 -0500
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #14

Hi,

I'll say it again: The attena has to be a division of the actual
wavelength of the signal you are trying to pick up. It is possible that the
102" is too long, and the wave is "breaking up" when it hits the signal. If
the attena is not attenuated properly (trimmed), the signal will "bounce
around" inside the wire... causing enough disruption that the signal will
weaken. I am about 98% sure this is your problem... I've seen it many
times... Get out the books, see what the proper measurement is.. and trim
accordingly...

Good luck!



>I put a 48" fiberglass on the rear bumper on the driver's side. Looks
great;
>performancewise? I can't be sure yet, but I get between 1/2 - 2 miles on
>receiving. Yesterday, my father on a 102" metal whip and I had trouble
>sending

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:39:03 EST
From: FastRngXLT
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

In a message dated 1/14/98 6:30:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, nc-
winklemi netcologne.de writes:


1) One with 160HP built from 1990 up to now used in Areostar, Ranger and
Explorer
2) The new SOHC 4.0l engine with 204HP buiilt from 1996 up to now, for '96
MY Explorer and '98 Ranger as an option
Both engines are built in Ford's Cologne engine plant in Germany. >>

The 4.0L SOHC is avalible in the Ranger this year to my knowledge, I was just
at a dealership 2 weeks ago and almost traded my 96' with a 3.0L engine on a
98' Splash . The only engines where the 2.5,3.0 and the 4.0L. And beleive me,
I check on that kind of thing. The Rating for the 4.0L in the Ranger is 160HP
with 220 Ft. LBS tourqe, still. Im sure Ford would put the 4.0L SOHC in there
for a price, though.

Brian

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:41:37 EST
From: FastRngXLT
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

In a message dated 1/14/98 6:47:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
garrpam netgsi.com writes:


either plan to install a 5.0 in my ranger or buying a new dakota >>

I second that one. Seems like we are getting lower and lower in the rat race
every 6 months. I love my Ranger and have spent alot of money and time on
performance mods and have aquired great power gains, but Im starting to feel
left out. Anyone with a Ranger should check out http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford ranger. com.
Its a great site with message boards and all.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 04:04:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Diana Slyter
Subject: Re: Ranger V8

I suspect the 98 front end rehash was done partly to accomodate a V8.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dianas __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
dianas primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Gardner wrote:

> David wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know if Ford has any plans to relese a Ranger with a V8 in the....


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.