small-list-digest Saturday, August 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 229



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Ranger, Explorer, Bronco 2 and Aerostar
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe small-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE Small - Turbo vs. Supercharger.
FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip
FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip
RE: FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip
FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions
FTE Small - Rear Antilock
Re: FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions
Re: FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions
FTE Small - 2000 RPM revisited
Re: FTE Small - 2000 RPM revisited

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:58:16 -0400
From: "Russ Parker"
Subject: FTE Small - Turbo vs. Supercharger.

Again I have to disagree here. Unless you can put an 8-71 or 10-71 on your
motor you're not going to get more boost. I can easily make 30psi or more
with my hybrid T-04 turbo. You're also backwards on your mileage theory, the
supercharger always decreases your mileage due to parasitic drag. The turbo
has no effect on mileage, except that it requires the fuel delivery to be
bumped up one psi for every psi of boost. Todays turbos are not like older
ones. You can tweak and tune them with fans and center sections until turbo
lag is only a myth. If I leave the line at 2500 RPM Im at 6psi of boost,
quite enough for it to be an exciting launch and still keep the truck under
control. That boost figure will triple a mere 500 RPM later when exhaust
energy starts to peak. Ever see a supercharger do that? I dont think they
will because they run off of engine RPM.

Most manufacturers are using superchargers now because 1) they are simpler.
2)They are less likely to break parts while under warranty 3)They are the
fad of the 90's Turbocharging was the rage in the 80's now supercharger is
the word on everyones lips.

lasty take a look at then and now. Whats faster? a Grand National or a
supercharged Grand Prix? How about a Turbocoupe or a supercoupe?


- -Russ

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:15:18 -0700
From: "Pete Lawless"
Subject: FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip

Doug wrote:
>I bought a Superchip for my '98 Ranger 4.0L and felt nothing. I knew
>I had it plugged in correctly, but I didn't "feel" a thing.
>Superchips claims you can "feel" the extra power, but I sure didn't.

Hey Doug,
I can't vouch for Superchip but I know when I installed a JET Perforamance
module on my '88 2.9 a couple years ago I initially didn't "feel" anything
either. It actually took about 20 miles of driving or more before the
computer "learned" the new codes and made the adjustments. However the next
day when I went for a drive is when I really noticed a difference in power.
ie: the truck was pulling long uphill grades easily in 5th gear that I
would have had to shift down to 4th before.

Did you leave it in for awile or take right back out??

Later..... Pete
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:18:19 -0700
From: "Pete Lawless"
Subject: FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip

Sorry..... my last post regarding the chips was actually intended for MR
JOSH J TENNEY rather than Doug.

Later.... Pete
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:47:36 -0700
From: "Al Nusbaum"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip

Pete....Where did you get that chip from? I have a 1990 Ranger 2.9 with an
automatic and have been thinking about such a modification. I have seen some
which require premium fuel to allow the chip to do it's thing.
What was the price and warranty?

Thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-small-list ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-small-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Pete Lawless
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 9:18 AM
> To: Ford Truck Discussion
> Subject: FTE Small - re: q's about Superchip
>
>
> Sorry..... my last post regarding the chips was actually intended for MR
> JOSH J TENNEY rather than Doug.
>
> Later.... Pete
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:11:28 -0500
From: "Jim Bielecki"
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions

>> Ford never intended for the 4.0 sohc to go into the ranger and it won't
for a
>> while either..there staying with the old 4.0 with the 160hp
>> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>Ford had intended to! Check out the sales brochures.
>Chris
>94 Lightning


I too remember seeing the 4.0 SOHC listed in the 1997 Ranger brochure. As
somebody pointed out before, this is strictly a matter of plant capacity.
Ford can just build so many of these engines and they would rather put them
in the high profit Explorer rather than the low profit Ranger.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:33:41 EDT
From: MadDog15M aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Rear Antilock

I have a 87' Ford Bronc 2 and on the onboard computer it says Rear Antilock.
The lady said that the light turned on when it hit 100,000 miles. Should I
take it to the dealer to have it checked on or what or is it something that I
could probobly fix myself? Thanks for the help.

Eric
87' Ford Bronco II
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:40:54 -0700
From: "Alan Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions

At 05:11 PM 8/14/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>> Ford never intended for the 4.0 sohc to go into the ranger and it won't

>I too remember seeing the 4.0 SOHC listed in the 1997 Ranger brochure. As
>somebody pointed out before, this is strictly a matter of plant capacity.
>Ford can just build so many of these engines and they would rather put them
>in the high profit Explorer rather than the low profit Ranger.
>
- ----

The Ranger being a #1 Seller...I guess Ford knows best...
Alan Wilson


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:06:46 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Ranger SOHC Questions

Alan Wilson wrote:
>

> The Ranger being a #1 Seller...I guess Ford knows best...


Ford knows best how to turn a profit. If they really WANTED to, they
could put the SOHC engine in the Ranger. You can't tell me that they
can't make a phone call and double production on that engine. They
aren't selling THAT many Contours. The Ranger is the #1 selling pickup
without the SOHC engine, so why try harder?

PLEASE FORD MAKE THE RANGER WITH A 225 hp ENGINE!!!!!!!!! I will paint
my wife Ford blue and make her ride on the hood in semi-legal
attire!!!!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:33:24 EDT
From: SFBurke51 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - 2000 RPM revisited

This is my second attempt. No response the first time, but now I might have
additional info.
1989 Ranger, 2.3 - 4cyl w/ 8 plugs, 5 speed
The first post mentioned a severe stuttering and actual loss of speed in the
vicinity of 2000 rpm with even just a little push on the gas. It'll cruise
but even the slightest hill (I'm in Florida) causes problems. It's still
intermittent but getting more pronounced and a wider range( 1700-2300 RPM).
No "Check Engine" light. Previous friend/mechanic, who I thought was
brilliant, told me to:
1. Run a gas treatment w/ super unleaded for a couple of tanks.
2. Change the gas filter.
3. Disconnect the battery for a while so the computer can learn a new
setting. ( I did this 4 times.)
4. If above failed, change my shifting to higher revs and avoid the problem
'cause he didn't have a clue.

I ended up with # 4 but it's very uncomfortable to me to run at the revs I
need to avoid the problem in some gears. The new mechanic says it "might"
have to do with the Throttle Position Sensor (TPS). Great! I was raised on
regular carburated engines so all this computer stuff beats the heck out of
me. Am I beyond the help of doing it myself or does any of this make sense to
somebody out there? So far I haven't bought a computer reader but that looks
like my next step.

Any help?

Thanks ahead of time

Steve
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:04:51 EDT
From: Amosil aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 2000 RPM revisited

Had similar problem with my 93 Ranger. It turned out to be the Throttle
Postion Sensor. Good luck on your problem. My dealer is pretty flaky.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------....


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.