Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:46:36 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-small-digest)
To: fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #14
Reply-To: fordtrucks-small ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-small-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-small-digest Wednesday, January 14 1998 Volume 02 : Number 014



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

Fog/Driving Lights [PDupont105 ]
Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #13 [Bill Funk ]
Re: Rnager Lift [mark fitzgerald ]
Test [Ken Payne ]
Re: Fog/Driving Lights [Midwest96 ]
Extended Warranty [John Bartin ]
Re: Extended Warranty [Uri Blumenthal ]
Re: wer'e up to catalytic converters now [bmrickman juno.com (brian k ric]
Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #13 [Gardner ]
U joint troubles with lift ["Mike Wiatt" ]
Re: Fog/Driving Lights [Jerad Heffner ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Jerad Heffner ]
Re: Rnager Lift ["Lare/Eric" ]
Re: U joint troubles with lift [mark fitzgerald ]
Re: Rnager Lift [mark fitzgerald ]
Re: CBs: antennas and mounting [Midwest96 ]
Re: U joint troubles with lift [Diana Slyter ]

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 08:07:06 EST
From: PDupont105
Subject: Fog/Driving Lights

Hello,
I have an '87 BroncoII and am interested in getting Fog/Driving Lights for it.
I was thinking of the combination - one light split into Fog & Driving lights.
For those of you who currently have Fog and/or Driving lights where is the
best place to mount these? What is the best kind to buy? I want to avoid
lights that will vibrate a lot because of cheap/poor mounting brackets (annoys
me to no end).
Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Patrick

'87 Bronco II (88,000mi)
'88 Ford Taurus (98,000mi)

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 07:30:29 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #13

> From: Gardner
> Subject: Re: Why 2 plugs?
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> ...
> > Hmmm...
> > Interesting concept, there.
> > However, I doubt that works. There's not anywhere near the right
> mixture
> > for a spark plug to ignite in the exhaust gases; if there were,
> they'd
> > burn on the power stroke.
> > In reality, the two plugs serve several purposes. They allow higher
> > performance, and at the same time, lower emissions. Higher
> performance,
> > because at higher RPMs, and with a squish head, one plug won't fire
> the
> > air/fuel charge completely without knock, while two plugs, firing
> from
> > seperate places, produce two flame fronts, burning the charge
> faster;
> > this also allows higher compression, which lowers emissions. The
> firings
> > may well be staggered, to fit the characteristics of the head, but I
>
> > don't know about that (they often are in high-RPM race engines).
> >
> > Bill Funk
>
> The 2.3 is designed for low end power not high rpms, what you are
> referring to is how the mazda rx7 rotary motor is desined with two
> plugs
> on the same side! The 2.3 has them on opposite sides of each other and
>
> have two seperate coils one to fire on compression stroke and one to
> fire on exhaust!

I have to admit, I'm at a loss to think of why anyone would make an
engine that was so inefficient that it would waste so much of it's
air/fuel charge that there could be enough for a spark plug to fire it
on the exhaust stroke!
The 2.3 is designed for low end power??? My 460 is designed for low end
power; the 2.3 must rev up to make power; it's far too small to be a
torque engine. What is considered low RPM here?
I'll say this: if the Ford 2.3 engine does indeed have a spark plug to
fire during the exhaust stroke, the engine is far too inefficient for
anyone to even consider. The *only* way such a plug could reduce
emisions would be to actually ignite a fire. If there's enough air/fuel
left after the power stroke to do that, then there's a *very* serious
problem with that engine design.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 06:54:28 -0800 (PST)
From: mark fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Rnager Lift

My 4x4 84 ranger sees some great off road about two times a week as
well as acting as a daily driver full time. About once a month about
12 of us do a three day trip up to the white mountain region for some
great wheeling. I've rebuilt the front end 4 or 5 times, i honestly
have lost count. At forst i thought it might have been the way i was
doing it, maybe a flaw in my work or something, but after having it
done proffessionaly and watching the whole time, such was not the
case. Under full articulation or, the angle of the joints proves too
much for the front end, and something always gives. If there's 19,000
miles on your front end i'd at least check it out, because i don't
think you have too much farther to go before it ruptures. Another
thing that might add to my front end wearing down so quickly is the
added torque and horsepower of the engine. I'm running a 302 in the
ranger right now...so..go figure.:)

fitzy

- ---Lare/Eric wrote:
>
> I've got a '94 Splash SC 4x4 w/ a Trailmaster 4" lift with the same
spacer
> type (drop down brackets) setup for the axle, radius arms, and sway
bar
> ..... 32x11.5R15's ... no u-joint trouble (or any other for that
matter)
> after 19,000 miles .... this truck sees moderate off-roading about
twice a
> month in PA ...... from what I see under my truck I could go with
33's with
> this same lift .... may go w/ 35's after a 2" body lift next summer
... I'm
> not sure if my '94 could be directly compared to an '84 or a two wheel
> drive, though.
>
> Eric S.
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 10:29:25 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Test

ADMIN test

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:34:54 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Re: Fog/Driving Lights

I have PIAA Fogs and am extremely happy woth them. I have never used Hella?
but many people on the list seem happy with those also. I went through two
sets of KC before switching to PIAA and wouldn't recommend them at all. I
picked fog because they looked brighter, and I run them during the day and
they work fine. I briefly had covers on the headlights, and I raised the fog
lights to cover just behind the headlights and they worked great.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:41:10 -0600
From: John Bartin
Subject: Extended Warranty

Has anyone shopped recently for extended warranty deals with dealer or
aftermarket? If so, where did you find your best deal and what type of
coverage (drive train, bumper to bumper as original, or something
in-between) and what price did you find? Which Ford truck was it for?

Thanks
John

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:48:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Uri Blumenthal
Subject: Re: Extended Warranty

John Bartin says:
> Has anyone shopped recently for extended warranty deals with dealer or
> aftermarket? If so, where did you find your best deal and what type of
> coverage (drive train, bumper to bumper as original, or something
> in-between) and what price did you find? Which Ford truck was it for?

Price-wise and term-wise (number of years, amount of miles) it looks
like an ESP sold by insurance companies is th best. For example,
Warranty Gold offers several ESP's, from really sh**ty to
something decent named "Diamond ESP". They claim that
their any dealer in USA is legally required to
accept their ESP.

On the other hand, an ESP from a dealer is going to be accepted by
any dealership of that manufacturer. That's what I chose for myself,
having 75,000 miles/6 years; instead of 100K/7years with Warranty
Gold.

Both "PremiumCARE" from Ford, and "Diamond ESP" from Warranty Gold
seem to cover bumper-to-bumper (except several maintenance items,
of course). Warranty Gold is on "www.edmunds.com" page, and
Ford's ESP is of course on "www.ford.com".
- --
Regards,
Uriuri watson.ibm.com
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-


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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:35:41 -0600
From: bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)
Subject: Re: wer'e up to catalytic converters now

"When the converter is heated and extra air is pumped into it by an air
pump, contact with the catalysts causes the hydrocarbons and the carbon
monoxide to be converted into harmless carbon dioxide and water."
"Petroleum is the principal source of hydrocarbons. The smaller
hydrocarbon molecules form gases, intermediate molecules form liquids,
and the larger molecules are solids at room temperature."
this was shamelessly copied from my encyclopedia. "hydrocarbon" is just a
fancy word for "gasoline". too many 'hydrocarbons' in the converter will
cause overheating and damage. this often results from a poorly tuned or
malfunctioning engine. catalytic converters burn the unused fuel from the
engine, or i guess you could say that they "convert" it to a simpler
chemical composition. (i like 'burn' better)

Hey Rodney, are you keeping up with all of this?

B Rickman bmrickman juno.com
91 Explorer 4X4 EB AOD
81 F100 2wd 351w AOD

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:02:32 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-small-digest V2 #13

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> > From: Gardner
> > Subject: Re: Why 2 plugs?
> >
> > Bill Funk wrote:
> > ...
> > > Hmmm...
> > > Interesting concept, there.
> > > However, I doubt that works. There's not anywhere near the right
> > mixture
> > > for a spark plug to ignite in the exhaust gases; if there were,
> > they'd
> > > burn on the power stroke.
> > > In reality, the two plugs serve several purposes. They allow higher
> > > performance, and at the same time, lower emissions. Higher
> > performance,
> > > because at higher RPMs, and with a squish head, one plug won't fire
> > the
> > > air/fuel charge completely without knock, while two plugs, firing
> > from
> > > seperate places, produce two flame fronts, burning the charge
> > faster;
> > > this also allows higher compression, which lowers emissions. The
> > firings
> > > may well be staggered, to fit the characteristics of the head, but I
> >
> > > don't know about that (they often are in high-RPM race engines).
> > >
> > > Bill Funk
> >
> > The 2.3 is designed for low end power not high rpms, what you are
> > referring to is how the mazda rx7 rotary motor is desined with two
> > plugs
> > on the same side! The 2.3 has them on opposite sides of each other and
> >
> > have two seperate coils one to fire on compression stroke and one to
> > fire on exhaust!
>
> I have to admit, I'm at a loss to think of why anyone would make an
> engine that was so inefficient that it would waste so much of it's
> air/fuel charge that there could be enough for a spark plug to fire it
> on the exhaust stroke!
> The 2.3 is designed for low end power??? My 460 is designed for low end
> power; the 2.3 must rev up to make power; it's far too small to be a
> torque engine. What is considered low RPM here?
> I'll say this: if the Ford 2.3 engine does indeed have a spark plug to
> fire during the exhaust stroke, the engine is far too inefficient for
> anyone to even consider. The *only* way such a plug could reduce
> emisions would be to actually ignite a fire. If there's enough air/fuel
> left after the power stroke to do that, then there's a *very* serious
> problem with that engine design.
>
> Bill Funk
>
> +---------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/ ----------+

I think peak torque is at 2400 rpm's and peak horsepower is at
4000...no real low but pretty low for a 4 cylinder.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:42:01 PST
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: U joint troubles with lift

I have heard so many different stories about the U-joints. I know
someone who has lifted the rear 2" and has had trouble. I also know
someone who went up 4" and has had no trouble in over 40,000 miles. Who
knows. The symptom (besides worn joints) is vibration under initial
acceleration. 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)

I guess the best thing to do is not worry about it until you have
problems (because if you havent sinned and god is on your side you might
not have any problems).

Well I get the truck back on Wed at about 2 PM so I'll let you know what
happens.


- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152 hotmail.com
'94 Ranger Supercab 4x2 4.0 5 speed
The Ford Ranger Pages
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7894
- ---------------------------------------------


______________________________________________________

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:03:49 -0500
From: Jerad Heffner
Subject: Re: Fog/Driving Lights

I have an '84 Ranger, and I took the grill guard approach. It looks great, and
does a decent job. Location is an important factor -- you need the lights as low
as possible to shine UNDER the fog, which mine don't. Mine shine INTO the fog,
like the headlights, and therefore they don't make good fog lights at my
location. Lower, maybe, I can't say 'cuz i don't know. The same for the amber
lights. I have seen amber lights at work, but it's been so long I don't
remember. Ack! Am i really getting so old I can't remember? No, i was too
young! :) I have a set of KC driving lights (clear, not amber) and they do a
good job of lighting up the road. If I needed to, i could drive without the
headlights, but the long range of the headlights is important 'cuz i's be
overdrivg the driving lights. They do not rattle (or not yet at least) and have
fared me quite well. They have the flip-up cover for daytime protection. That
can be annoying if you're driving as it gets dark and have the covers down. The
inlcuded switch also glows green, and is rather bright at night (but provides for
a romantic glow! Uhm, sorry! Just kiddin'! )

They came from Wal-Mart and cost me $24.97 + tax. So far, so good.

Hope this helps in some way.
Jerad Heffner
'84 Ranger 4x4


PDupont105 wrote:

> Hello,
> I have an '87 BroncoII and am interested in getting Fog/Driving Lights for it.
> I was thinking of the combination - one light split into Fog & Driving lights.
> For those of you who currently have Fog and/or Driving lights where is the
> best place to mount these? What is the best kind to buy? I want to avoid
> lights that will vibrate a lot because of cheap/poor mounting brackets (annoys
> me to no end).
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
> Patrick
>
> '87 Bronco II (88,000mi)
> '88 Ford Taurus (98,000mi)
> +---------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: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:13:16 -0500
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

Midwest96 wrote:

> In a message dated 98-01-08 20:08:02 EST, you write:
>
>
> work?
>
> Jerad
> >>
>
> There just clips - On the end of the coax, you add a mounting piece, and the
> antenae slips down, twists slightly and locks into place. I call them spring
> detachments because the peice that fits to the end of the coax is coiled metal
> that looks like a spring. Does that help?
> +---------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: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:29:18 -0500
From: "Lare/Eric"
Subject: Re: Rnager Lift

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


- -----Original Message-----
From: mark fitzgerald
To: fordtrucks-small listservice.net
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Rnager Lift


>My 4x4 84 ranger sees some great off road about two times a week as
>well as acting as a daily driver full time. About once a month about
>12 of us do a three day trip up to the white mountain region for some
>great wheeling. I've rebuilt the front end 4 or 5 times, i honestly
>have lost count. At forst i thought it might have been the way i was
>doing it, maybe a flaw in my work or something, but after having it
>done proffessionaly and watching the whole time, such was not the
>case. Under full articulation or, the angle of the joints proves too
>much for the front end, and something always gives. If there's 19,000
>miles on your front end i'd at least check it out, because i don't
>think you have too much farther to go before it ruptures. Another
>thing that might add to my front end wearing down so quickly is the
>added torque and horsepower of the engine. I'm running a 302 in the
>ranger right now...so..go figure.:)
>
>fitzy
>
>---Lare/Eric wrote:
>>
>> I've got a '94 Splash SC 4x4 w/ a Trailmaster 4" lift with the same
>spacer
>> type (drop down brackets) setup for the axle, radius arms, and sway
>bar
>> ..... 32x11.5R15's ... no u-joint trouble (or any other for that
>matter)
>> after 19,000 miles .... this truck sees moderate off-roading about
>twice a
>> month in PA ...... from what I see under my truck I could go with
>33's with
>> this same lift .... may go w/ 35's after a 2" body lift next summer
>... I'm
>> not sure if my '94 could be directly compared to an '84 or a two wheel
>> drive, though.
>>
>> Eric S.
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >
>+---------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: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:41:21 -0800 (PST)
From: mark fitzgerald
Subject: Re: U joint troubles with lift

Dana 44 conversion baby....definitely the way to go for me:)

fitzy

- ---Mike Wiatt wrote:
>
> I have heard so many different stories about the U-joints. I know
> someone who has lifted the rear 2" and has had trouble. I also know
> someone who went up 4" and has had no trouble in over 40,000 miles.
Who
> knows. The symptom (besides worn joints) is vibration under initial
> acceleration. 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)
>
> I guess the best thing to do is not worry about it until you have
> problems (because if you havent sinned and god is on your side you
might
> not have any problems).
>
> Well I get the truck back on Wed at about 2 PM so I'll let you know
what
> happens.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:46:25 -0800 (PST)
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

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:32:20 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Re: CBs: antennas and mounting

In a message dated 98-01-13 22:16:04 EST, you write:


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
>>

Your receiving depends on the weather, as much as the mounting. I'm sure some
will disagree with me, but when I can get people from S.C. here in MI on a
fairly regular basis, and have trouble getting friends 2-3 miles away at other
times, I doubt it's the mounting. In my experience, I've gotten better
reception with duals, but your transmit range will remain about the same.
Duals make you less directional, but until you add a booster (completely
illegal, so we're being hypothetical here - theoretically it's about $1 per
watt if you wanted one) your transmit range will remain the same. I've had no
problems using dual three foot fiberglass, eighteen foot split coax, and 4
watts, but I nver try to transmit more than a mile in most cases. Ask one of
the antannae guys, but I have only had problems with 102" 60, 48, and 36 have
worked best for me. Those are just personal observations, not professional
opinions...

Criag {Midwest96 aol.com}

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:17:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Diana Slyter
Subject: Re: U joint troubles with lift

Before lifting, you might want to check the u-joint manufacturers
literature which usually gives specs for maximum angularity, driveshaft
length, etc. Also, exceeding the manufacturers recomendations doesn't just
wear out the u-joints prematurely; the vibrations set up can destroy
transfer cases and differentials too.

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

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Mike Wiatt wrote:

> I have heard so many different stories about the U-joints. I know
> someone who has lifted the rear 2" and has had trouble. I also know
> someone who went up 4" and has had no trouble in over 40,000 miles. Who
> knows. The symptom (besides worn joints) is vibration under initial
> acceleration. 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)
>
> I guess the best thing to do is not worry about it until you have
> problems (because if you havent sinned and god is on your side you might
> not have any problems).
>
> Well I get the truck back on Wed at about 2 PM so I'll let you know what....


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.