Return-Path:
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 04:48:01 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-small-digest)
To: fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #79
Reply-To: fordtrucks-small ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-small-digest Sunday, March 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 079



=======================================================================
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:

Re: Fuel mileage, and Rusty trucks.... ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: More on fuels.... ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: 98 4.0 Ranger mileage [james oxley ]
Re: Colored Lights? [Bill Funk ]
Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived! [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived! [mark fitzgerald
Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived! [Diana Slyter ]
Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived! [Garr & Pam ]
Re: Colored Lights? ["Jose A. Castillo" ]
Explorer reliability ["David Goodwin" ]
Re: More on fuels.... [Ken Payne ]
Re: 98 4.0 Ranger mileage [Tom Test ]

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:36:01 -0500
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: Fuel mileage, and Rusty trucks....

>My '89 Bronco II turned over 200,000 yesterday and I want to get another
>Ford. That Bronco has been one good truck. I will definitely keep it.
>Now if only we in MN could find a way to keep the bodies on our vehicles
>from rusting away......
>Sully


Ever heard of underbody oil spray?? or rust coat? or Zeibart? Oil works for
me, here in land of the salty winter..... Ontario. I miss BC... just rain..
and gravel.. but gravel chips the paint and.... Rust!

While I'm here.. it's nice to see that I'm not the only one complaining
about MPG in Fords....

I never knew the corn fuel lowered mileage.. I use it sometimes (it cleans
out the crap realllllly well), and never noticed any difference..... hmmmm
Possible though!

Later,
Lou Guerriero
________________________________
Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.echelon.ca/loug/
E-Mail: loug >bigfoot.com

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 07:50:17 -0500
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: More on fuels....

Quoted Text
__________________

Don't blame it on Ford. All those hybrid fuels that the industry is coming
up
with are only to keep the government happy. The EPA and the oil industry has
done little consulting with any car companys about hybrid fuels to bring
down
emissions. Those types of fuels have lower btu's and itis obvious that it
will
take more fuel to keep the vehicle going. Get involved with your government
or
groups to do something about it.
___________________

Ok, so answer this... if more oxygen in the fuel means less mileage.. why
would anyone put a freer flowing air system in??? Wouldn't that mean more
Air in the mix? Kinda like more air in the fuel? haha

My understanding was also that the ethanol blends (here at least) burn
hotter.... BECAUSE of the extra oxygen and higher octane.... which gives a
little more power.... Although one co-worker swears he melted his catalytic
converter with the hotter gasses...

As for getting involved with your gov't.... My understanding of the
situation in the MidWest US is that yes, it is MARKETED as environmentally
friendly, but the real reason they do it is because of the millions of tons
of excess corn/grain every year that doesn't get sold due to slumping
prices..... Saw a special on it.... the idea was to get more value out of
the product because it's a fuel, vice a food....
(and really, just going to waste sitting in silo's for years anyway...)

[It's getting hot... is that a flame I see? :-)]


On an unrelated topic.... is it worth it to replace my headers if I'm
changing my exhaust system? If so, what is a good brand, ideal size (do they
come in sizes? dunno, I'm new at headers)

I am getting rusted out in a few spots, and want to put in a larger pipe
underneath... Any suggestions? I've heard/read several things on this...
not sure what way to go.. I've heard 3 inch is too big...

Lou Guerriero, Betsy the 88 Baby Bronco.
________________________________
Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.echelon.ca/loug/
E-Mail: loug > bigfoot.com

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:43:43 -0800
From: james oxley
Subject: Re: 98 4.0 Ranger mileage

HYDROSMITH wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-03-13 15:13:01 EST, you write:
>
>
> run on the stuff, their going to lose a lot of customers, myself included.
> >>
>
> Don't blame it on Ford. All those hybrid fuels that the industry is coming up
> with are only to keep the government happy. The EPA and the oil industry has
> done little consulting with any car companys about hybrid fuels to bring down
> emissions. Those types of fuels have lower btu's and itis obvious that it will
> take more fuel to keep the vehicle going. Get involved with your government or
> groups to do something about it.


I second this. It's not a Ford thing. It's the lack of involvment by
the american public and the green movement that thinks the internal
combustion engine is the root of all evil.

The problem of oxygenates IS addessed in the fuel mixture of modern EFI
engines. The O2 sensor tells the computer it is running lean and
the compensation is adding more VOLUME of fuel. From studies I've read,
you will get slightly lower winter concentations of ground "ozone" , but
your obviously using substantially more fuel, so it's kind of an
environmental tradeoff. One of the oxygenates is extremely toxic when it
reaches the ground water supply making cleaner air irrelevant when you
kill yourself drinking the water. It has allready been banned in Ca.

OX

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:14:44 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: Colored Lights?

> From: S-10 Killer
> Subject: Re: Colored Lights?
>
> Now that we know how these things work, the question is can you see
> any
> better with them? If so, how much? If not, how much less? I fail to
> see
> how a "blue light" can give you a better vision than a white light.
>
> More info on this topic please.

If these are the lights I think they are, it's like this:
The lights themselves are tinted blue, because the filament puts out a
light that's deficient in the blues.
The blue tint to the light adds blue, making the light look much whiter
(otherwise, it would look yellow, which we see (interpret) as being
weak.
(Bluing is put into laundry detergents for the same reason; makes whites
look whiter, and thus cleaner.)

Bill

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:20:41, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived!

Mark,

This F-450 4x4 has a massive driveline. This one has a Dana 60 front
axle, Dana 80 rear axle, New Venture 271 Transfer Case (manual),
4R100 auto. I hope this what you're looking for.

Josh

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:03:30 -0800 (PST)
From: mark fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived!

Definitely what i was looking for and definitely overbuilt. Perfect
for what the trucks will be doing. Kudos and congratulations goes out
to Ford for building a real "truck."

Thanks,
Fitzy

- ---MR JOSH J TENNEY wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> This F-450 4x4 has a massive driveline. This one has a Dana 60 front
> axle, Dana 80 rear axle, New Venture 271 Transfer Case (manual),
> 4R100 auto. I hope this what you're looking for.
>
> Josh
> +---------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/
- ----------+
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:45:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Diana Slyter
Subject: Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived!

I saw a few Super Duties at Boyer Ford the other day, but they didn't have
the model I'm looking for (F250 4x4) to check out the cab height.
Unfortunately they didn't have any literature on the Super Duty either.
Have you by chance seen a sample of the truck I'm looking for or any
literature? Thanks.

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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 18:35:55 +0000
From: Garr & Pam
Subject: Re: Our Super Duty F-450 Arrived!

Diana Slyter wrote:
>
> I saw a few Super Duties at Boyer Ford the other day, but they didn't have
> the model I'm looking for (F250 4x4) to check out the cab height.
> Unfortunately they didn't have any literature on the Super Duty either.
> Have you by chance seen a sample of the truck I'm looking for or any
> literature? Thanks.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> dianas __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
> dianas primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
> / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +---------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/ ----------+

My local Ford dealer has an F 350 4X4... single wheel rear axle..regular
cab.. It is tough looking! Love it!
Chris

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 18:03:55 -0600
From: "Jose A. Castillo"
Subject: Re: Colored Lights?

It's a compromise between optimal night vision and cockpit vision, green
is actually the preferred color, but I suspect fashion might dictate the
color.

Example: city light are in the amber color range which affords good
luminence but does not impart vision when looking into dark areas.

Joe,
Dallas, Tx

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:46:59 PST
From: "David Goodwin"
Subject: Explorer reliability

Mine is a 91 4-door Eddie Bauer with 4.0, A4OD and 3.55 gears. It has
122,000 miles and rides like new. I've replaced the power steering
pump, valve cover gaskets, rear pinion seal and, of course, the radius
arm bushings. It serves my needs very well. It pulls my boat short
distances, goes in the snow, has plenty of pep and, after driving my
F150, it feels like a Lincoln, by comparison. I love my Explorer.
Wouldn't part with it for anything...Wouldn't mind an extended test
drive of the Expedition though!

Dave

______________________________________________________

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 20:19:43 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: More on fuels....

- -snip-
>
>Ok, so answer this... if more oxygen in the fuel means less mileage.. why
>would anyone put a freer flowing air system in??? Wouldn't that mean more
>Air in the mix? Kinda like more air in the fuel? haha
>

Simple:
rust is oxygenated iron.
charcoal is oxygenated wood
soot it oxygenated oil

Oxygenated fuil, from a scientic standpoint, is particially
"pre-burnt" because there's already oxygen bonded to some
of the hydrocarbons.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:01:22 EST
From: Tom Test
Subject: Re: 98 4.0 Ranger mileage

dianas primenet.com writes:

> Most of the gas guzzling is caused by the O2 sensors getting
> fooled by the oxygenated fuel into thinking it needs to richen
> the mixture.

Right in fact, wrong in intepretation. The EEC system is not being fooled,
it is doing exactly what it needs to do in order to satisfy EPA limits on
NOx emissions. Due to the extra oxygen content in the fuel, it is necessary
to pump in more fuel, so that the catalytic converter gets fed enough
unburned HC to reduce NOx to specified limits.

The oxygenated fuel scheme is targeted at old cars that do not
have any sort of electronic emissions control, on the premise that
they are all probably tuned to run on the rich side, and could stand
to be run leaner to lower HC emissions. This is supposed to be OK
for the fleet as a whole, because modern cars with electronic
positive feedback electronic control systems should be able to
detect the oxygenated fuel as a lean mixture problem, and enrich to
correct it.

How much this improves the environment is questionable, because
as soon as those old cars start bucking and stalling from over-lean
mixtures, someone is going to tune them to run even richer. The
main drive for oxygenated fuel is from natural gas producers and
corn farmers who want enhanced demand for their products, and
from Archer-Daniels-Midland who will make the grain ethanol, and
the few oil refiners running a MBTE stream. The economic effect
for you as a consumer is that you get to pay $1.20 a gallon for
oxygen you would have otherwise pulled from the air.

No one currently seems to be concerned about the toxic waste
products from ethanol combustion, formalin is not on the list of
controlled emissions. There has been some recognition of the
toxicity of MBTE; I am starting to see new warning signs at
self-serve pumps.

> Ford claims to have an engine control system mod which will
> allow the 3.0 V6 to run on up to 95% ethanol.

Ford builds a number of multifuel cars, including a 3.0 Taurus
that will run on E85. This involves a lot more than a computer
change, everything that touches the fuel is different, mostly
using more expensive materials.

Don't assume Ford's multifuel engines will get better mileage
on ethanol. They must be designed to run also on 87 octane
gasoline, and thus have gasoline-friendly compression ratios.
Efficient use of ethanol requires a more compression than
gasoline can handle. An ethanol engine should be at least up
around 13:1 CR.

There are a few compression-ignition (Diesel as opposed to Otto
cycle) multifuel engines that can burn ethanol and/or methanol....

---

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.