small-list-digest Monday, July 13 1998 Volume 02 : Number 193



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

Re: FTE Small - '98 windstar- fill brake reservoir
FTE Small - Re: Anti-SUV survey
FTE Small - Am I on the wrong list?
Re: FTE Small - Am I on the wrong list?
FTE Small - Re: SUV's
FTE Small - Re;
FTE Small - Explorer starters
Re: FTE Small - Re: SUV's

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:26:19 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Small - '98 windstar- fill brake reservoir

You might have better luck on the Fordnatics mailing list.
The Windstar is based on the Ford Taurus chassis. The
Aerostar was admitted to this list because it was based on
the Ranger chassis.


At 10:37 PM 7/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>hey all,
>
>have a '98 windstar, and an wondering how to you access the brake fluid
>reservoir to refill?
>
>
>any suggestions appreciated.
>--------------------------
>Parker Brooks (St. Louis)
>NLOC #42
>'95 Flareside (nothings stock on it anymore)
>whoz primary.net (PGP key on request)
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/4902/
>
>"Drive it like you stole it!"
>
>
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 14:09:16 EDT
From: SMTH100 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Anti-SUV survey

In a message dated 98-07-12 06:23:45 EDT, you write:


road as I have finally found a good use for them. While riding my 650cc.
motorcycle/ sidecar combination I normally have a top speed capability of
80 mph or so. I have learned to back off a bit when big SUVs pass, then
discretely tuck in a hundred feet astern and catch their draft. I can then
reduce my throttle setting considerably and watch my mpg improve above the
usual 30+ rate while the SUV continues to get its usual 10 mpg or so. The
SUVs brakes are so weak that there is no great hazard in following this
close. The SUV drivers seldom notice me, they seem to use the mirrors for
enroute personal grooming only. As they typically maintain a following
distance of 10 feet or so my 100 foot would cause them no alarm. As the
SUV actually has no more interior room than a compact station wagon their
roofs are frequently loaded with camping gear, etc. As these objects are
frequently secured with heavy duty string in a manner that would make a
teamster puke, it is advisable to follow loaded SUVs at a greater
distance. I do try to stay close enough though to be able to salvage any >>

Where do you people get this stuff? You subscribe to a list about these type
of vehicles and I you only complain about them. Bye the way my parents'
Expedition gets 16 mpg at 70mph hwy driving. With what I just read I have to
assume that you were making some kind of humor as it is all not true. When
they come out with a side car that will haul six kids and two full size dogs I
wil get one a New York minute!
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:58:29 -0500
From: Bill Adams
Subject: FTE Small - Am I on the wrong list?

I just joined this list, been on the 79 and older Ford truck list for a
while.

I thought this list was for people who own and like vehicles like
Explorers. All I find is arguments about why they should be off the
road.

Am I in the wrong list?

Owner, driver, and lover of an Explorer.
Bill Adams
1966 F-100 Custom Cab, 352 V8, PS, AC, Long bed
1961 F-100 Unibody, 223 and a three on the tree!
92 2wd Explorer

The WoodButcher's Shop
"http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/heartland/plains/6640"

,.-----__
_ ,:::://///,:::-.
_| ~~. /:''/////// `` ::`;/|/
\, *_} /' ( Ford ) :://'`\
\( .' , |||||| `/( e \
-===~__-'\____ ```\_____/~`-._ `.
~~ ~~ `~-'
**************************************************************

**************************************************************

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:35:03 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Am I on the wrong list?

At 01:58 PM 7/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I just joined this list, been on the 79 and older Ford truck list for a
>while.
>
>I thought this list was for people who own and like vehicles like
>Explorers. All I find is arguments about why they should be off the
>road.
>
>Am I in the wrong list?
>
>Owner, driver, and lover of an Explorer.
>Bill Adams
>1966 F-100 Custom Cab, 352 V8, PS, AC, Long bed
>1961 F-100 Unibody, 223 and a three on the tree!
>92 2wd Explorer
>
>The WoodButcher's Shop
>"http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/heartland/plains/6640"
>

No, you're in the right place. It doesn't matter which side you're on,
it appears that this matter has been discussed beyond usefullness and
the topic deserves to die.

- -Ken Payne

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:44:49 EDT
From: BFunk33 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Re: SUV's

In a message dated 98-07-12 06:23:45 EDT, you write:

> From: Diana Slyter
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Anti-SUV survey
>
> I shall be most happy to see more of your huge Expeditions and such on the
> road as I have finally found a good use for them. While riding my 650cc.
> motorcycle/ sidecar combination I normally have a top speed capability of
> 80 mph or so. I have learned to back off a bit when big SUVs pass, then
> discretely tuck in a hundred feet astern and catch their draft. I can then
> reduce my throttle setting considerably and watch my mpg improve above the
> usual 30+ rate while the SUV continues to get its usual 10 mpg or so. The
> SUVs brakes are so weak that there is no great hazard in following this
> close. The SUV drivers seldom notice me, they seem to use the mirrors for
> enroute personal grooming only. As they typically maintain a following
> distance of 10 feet or so my 100 foot would cause them no alarm. As the
> SUV actually has no more interior room than a compact station wagon their
> roofs are frequently loaded with camping gear, etc. As these objects are
> frequently secured with heavy duty string in a manner that would make a
> teamster puke, it is advisable to follow loaded SUVs at a greater
> distance. I do try to stay close enough though to be able to salvage any
> useful lost SUV cargo before the next brain dead SUVer comes along and
> proudly demolishes it.

I gotta admit to some confusion, here.
I don't own an Expedition, but I have driven one for a week as provided by
(the other guy's) insurance (State Farm, no less!).
I'm not sure what the complaint about braking is about. The one I drove had
very good brakes. Maybe if those who complain about the SUV brakes would drive
a little more conservatively, they wouldn't have the problem. If the vehicle
doesn't suit your driving style, that doesn't make it bad, it just means it's
not suited to your driving style.
As for an Expedition having no more internal room than a compact station
wagon, I can only believe that Diana is either being facetious, or she hasn't
actually been in an Expedition.

My own observations of motorcycle riders is that they are stupid risktakers
who weave in and out of traffic at speeds well above the prevailing speeds,
splitting lanes with abandon, and showing nothing but disdane for us in our
4-wheel boxes.
How's that feel, Diana? Not nice, huh? And, it's about as true as your
rantings above. That is to say, not very.
If you don't like SUVs, that's fine. Don't own one, don't drive one, don't
ride in one. But your rants, quoted above, do very little to allow us to take
what you say seriously.
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:22:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew
Subject: FTE Small - Re;

Brakes: >I was wondering if they are now junk or...

I too would not reuse the old brake linnings. I doubt they are
designed to work well after being soaked in oil/brake fluid. (-:

>If the rearend is worn can an 8.8" from a later model Ranger be put in and are
>they available in a 3.73 gear ratio?

I have 173k on my "87 ranger. I am looking into replacing or
rebuilding my rear diff. I called a few junk yards and found several 8.8
available for the Ranger for $125-175. You will need an adapter to make the
7.5 drive shaft work with the 8.8. They couldn't tell me over the phone,
either if posi of what ratio.
Last evening, on the net I found, Axle Exchange,
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.axlexchange.com/ and Toms Differentials,
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.tomsdifferentials.com/index3.htm Look under "Ford+differential
rear end axel" There were many more.
I found replacement posi 3.73 from Ford for less than $700. To much
for my budget. I like the idea of getting used for less than $200. But if I
want to rebuild it (either existing or a used one) and put in a LS I fugure
it would cost $600 and labor. Having found that out, I am going to look a
lot harder for a used LS, 3.73 and 8.8 combination.

Best of luck,
Andrew

Private Offer, For List Members!
Scan Your Photo's, Share Your Pictures Online. (1 to 12
photo's $4.)
For further information
(Andrew)showork gwi.net>



== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:16:49 -0500
From: "Mike Nassour"
Subject: FTE Small - Explorer starters

I've just had a starter on a 92 Explorer go south on me....I think.

The truck wouldn't start, just clicked once. A friend rapped twice on
the starter with the tire tool and away we went. I assume this
means new starter.

A local mechanic tells me 1) it's normal for Explorer starters to go
south between 90K and 100K. 2) that this is a metric starter and
will cost over $100 plus about $75 installation.

Any comments on this? Am I getting ripped off? Seems a bit high
on the $$$$ front to me.

Thanks!

Mike Nassour
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 02:58:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Diana Slyter
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: SUV's

As I spend most of my windshield time in a little truck with a bulldog on
the front I'm not about to let the frustrated whining of remorseful SUV
owners bother me much. The drafting story is true, SUV aerodynamics are
that bad. As for interior space, see for yourself. The motorcycles seem to
be flying by because they are so much more nimble than the big SUVs. As
for my not having driven an Expedition, your right, I haven?t. As I'm not
exactly the demographic that Ford markets the Expedition to I haven't been
offered one. I have however driven Ford trucks ranging from the F150 to
the Louisville as well as Econolines, C series, and the Cargo; so I doubt
that a ride in this glorified F150 with an extended extended cab would be
much of a new experience for me.

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

On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 BFunk33 aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 98-07-12 06:23:45 EDT, you write:
>
> > From: Diana Slyter
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Anti-SUV survey
> >
> > I shall be most happy to see more of your huge Expeditions and such on the
> > road as I have finally found a good use for them. While riding my 650cc.
> > motorcycle/ sidecar combination I normally have a top speed capability of
> > 80 mph or so. I have learned to back off a bit when big SUVs pass, then
> > discretely tuck in a hundred feet astern and catch their draft. I can then
> > reduce my throttle setting considerably and watch my mpg improve above the
> > usual 30+ rate while the SUV continues to get its usual 10 mpg or so. The
> > SUVs brakes are so weak that there is no great hazard in following this
> > close. The SUV drivers seldom notice me, they seem to use the mirrors for
> > enroute personal grooming only. As they typically maintain a following
> > distance of 10 feet or so my 100 foot would cause them no alarm. As the
> > SUV actually has no more interior room than a compact station wagon their
> > roofs are frequently loaded with camping gear, etc. As these objects are
> > frequently secured with heavy duty string in a manner that would make a
> > teamster puke, it is advisable to follow loaded SUVs at a greater
> > distance. I do try to stay close enough though to be able to salvage any
> > useful lost SUV cargo before the next brain dead SUVer comes along and
> > proudly demolishes it.
>
> I gotta admit to some confusion, here.
> I don't own an Expedition, but I have driven one for a week as provided by
> (the other guy's) insurance (State Farm, no less!).
> I'm not sure what the complaint about braking is about. The one I drove had
> very good brakes. Maybe if those who complain about the SUV brakes would drive
> a little more conservatively, they wouldn't have the problem. If the vehicle
> doesn't suit your driving style, that doesn't make it bad, it just means it's
> not suited to your driving style.
> As for an Expedition having no more internal room than a compact station
> wagon, I can only believe that Diana is either being facetious, or she hasn't
> actually been in an Expedition.
>
> My own observations of motorcycle riders is that they are stupid risktakers
> who weave in and out of traffic at speeds well above the prevailing speeds,
> splitting lanes with abandon, and showing nothing but disdane for us in our
> 4-wheel boxes.
> How's that feel, Diana? Not nice, huh? And, it's about as true as your
> rantings above. That is to say, not very.
> If you don't like SUVs, that's fine. Don't own one, don't drive one, don't
> ride in one. But your rants, quoted above, do very little to allow us to take
> what you say seriously.....

---

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.