small-list-digest Thursday, September 10 1998 Volume 02 : Number 253



=======================================================================
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 - 1998 RANGER REFUND
Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND
FTE Small - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress
FTE Small - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress
FTE Small - What is a Ping???
Re: FTE Small - What is a Ping???
FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2
Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2
FTE Small - Ranger Pinging
FTE Small - Slack in shifter
Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging
Re: FTE Small - Slack in shifter
Re: FTE Small - Slack in shifter
FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel probs
FTE Small - ADMIN: Atlanta Get-together at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2
Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND
Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND
Re: FTE Small - ford jet chip modules
Re: FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel p Old 84
Re: FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel probs
Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pingin - Rmall - Rr>

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: EI - Michael Ioco
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND

Is anybody willing to deciper this? Being that my Ranger was built in
February, this doesn't apply. But I didn't hear anything about 4 wheels
ABS being standard on 4x4s.

Tommy, I recommend looking at other people's posts to see when
capitalization is appropriate and proper. Just a suggestion.

Mike in Michigan
98 Ranger 4x4 SC ORP Flareside, rear wheel ABS only


> From: tarmy webtv.net (tommy oslick jr)
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:04:05 -0400 (EDT)
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND
>
> If you own a 1998 RANGER XLT OR SPLASH 4X4 ONLY built between 3/5/1998
> ---- 5/12/1998 truck built at twin cites or edison plant will get either
> a rufund of $500.00 or $615.00 from FORD MOTOR COMPANY, $500 refund is
> your ranger must say on window sticker that your truck was equiped with
> 4 WHEEL ANTI-LOCK BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE WAS ACTUAL BUILT WITH ONLY REAR
> ANTI-LOCK BRAKES. to recieve the $615.00 refund your window sticker must
> state your ranger was equiped with 4 WHEEL ANTI-LOCK BRAKES AND THE
> VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY BUILT WITH THE REAR ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM. and the
> window stickers states your were charged for was a $100.00 for this
> option. the reason for this action is because 4 wheel anti-lock brakes
> are standard feature for the 4x4 only. only 858 rangers owners will
> recieve the check via the us postal service. dont forget this only
> applyies to 4x4 RANGERS OR SPLASHES 4X4 AND MUST BE BUILT FROM 3/5/1998
> TO 5/12/1998 AT THE EDDISON NEW JERSEY PLANT OR THE TWIN CITIES PLANT
> ONLY. also don't forget your 4x4 truck must be equiped with rear
> anti-lock brakes system not the 4wheel anti-lock system. this program
> ends 10/31/1998
>
> == 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: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:07:37 -0400
From: Ed Yohe
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND

This could be important - I hope somebody can decipher this.

At 11:04 PM 9/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>If you own a 1998 RANGER XLT OR SPLASH 4X4 ONLY built between 3/5/1998
>---- 5/12/1998 truck built at twin cites or edison plant will get either
>a rufund of $500.00 or $615.00 from FORD MOTOR COMPANY, $500 refund is
>your ranger must say on window sticker that your truck was equiped with
>4 WHEEL ANTI-LOCK BRAKES AND THE VEHICLE WAS ACTUAL BUILT WITH ONLY REAR
>ANTI-LOCK BRAKES. to recieve the $615.00 refund your window sticker must
>state your ranger was equiped with 4 WHEEL ANTI-LOCK BRAKES AND THE
>VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY BUILT WITH THE REAR ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM. and the
>window stickers states your were charged for was a $100.00 for this
>option. the reason for this action is because 4 wheel anti-lock brakes
>are standard feature for the 4x4 only. only 858 rangers owners will
>recieve the check via the us postal service. dont forget this only
>applyies to 4x4 RANGERS OR SPLASHES 4X4 AND MUST BE BUILT FROM 3/5/1998
>TO 5/12/1998 AT THE EDDISON NEW JERSEY PLANT OR THE TWIN CITIES PLANT
>ONLY. also don't forget your 4x4 truck must be equiped with rear
>anti-lock brakes system not the 4wheel anti-lock system. this program
>ends 10/31/1998
>
>== 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: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:46:56 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Small - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress

At 01:27 AM 9/9/98 -0700, J.S.H. wrote:
>My ford-truck email adress works great and I highly recomend it.
>Considering what I get off of these lists I figure buying a adress was
>the least I could do. By the way, my truck seems to run better now
>that I have my www.ford-trucks window sticker installed.
>
>
>
>== 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: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:47:24 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Small - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress

At 01:27 AM 9/9/98 -0700, J.S.H. wrote:
>My ford-truck email adress works great and I highly recomend it.
>Considering what I get off of these lists I figure buying a adress was
>the least I could do. By the way, my truck seems to run better now
>that I have my www.ford-trucks window sticker installed.
>
>
I get better milage with my sticker! Really! I slow down
whenever I pass another Ford truck or accelerate from
stoplights slower when there's a Ford truck behind me. I
like giving them a chance to read it.

Ken



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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:26:06 -0700
From: "Alan Wilson"
Subject: FTE Small - What is a Ping???

At 10:28 PM 9/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>my 1998 3.0 ranger 5sp sc 4x4 3,300 miles pings also. i think its the
>way the 3.0 intake is designed.
>---

I have a 1998 3.0 Ranger 4,900 miles and haven't heard anything. What does
a Ping sound like???
Alan Wilson


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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:26:14 -0400
From: "Bob Leifer"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - What is a Ping???

Pinging sounds sort of like a bunch of glass marbles dropping on the floor
and bouncing around. A little exaggeration, but not by too much when it is
severe pinging.

Bob
- -----Original Message-----
From: Alan Wilson
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 12:30 PM
Subject: FTE Small - What is a Ping???


>At 10:28 PM 9/8/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>my 1998 3.0 ranger 5sp sc 4x4 3,300 miles pings also. i think its the
>>way the 3.0 intake is designed.
>>---
>
>I have a 1998 3.0 Ranger 4,900 miles and haven't heard anything. What does
>a Ping sound like???
>Alan Wilson
>
>
>== 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: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:05:33 -0700
From: Richard
Subject: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2

Melvin Montemerlo wrote------------------------------------------------

I talk to Ranger owners that I see getting gas, and all have very strong
views on whether to use low, medium or high octane. Their views are
different- but all very strong. I figured that since so many 3.0 auto
Rangers use 87 octane with no problem, that mine should be able to
also. I
tried higher octane, but the pinging persisted.

My Reply-----------------------------------------------------------
My subject here is the use of high octane fuel in an unmodified engine
designed for regular gas. I welcome some discussion about this,
especially if someone feels I'm wrong. I'm most willing to learn.

Engines designed for high octane fuel ("high compression" motors) are
engineered to take advantage of a longer-burning explosion. That's what
boosting the octane does: it slows down the burning by a precise
amount. The controlled burn time is indicated by the fuel's octane
rating.

The valve timing is part of the engine/octane choreography. What
happens when you burn high octane gas in a low octane motor is that the
exhaust valves open while the slower-burning mixture is still burning.
You lose part of the fuel's "oomph" out the tailpipe. Further, the job
of cooling the valve castings is done by the cylinder heads; while
closed against their machined seats, the valves transfer the intense
heat from the just-completed explosions to the water-cooled head
castings. Since the high octane mixture is still combusting, expanding
in your 97-octane motor while rushing past the valves (which are held
away from their cooling mass) you get the added "benefit" of burned
valves.

So, the results of filling up a low-octane vehicle with high-octane gas
are as follows:
Higher fuel expense
Reduced fuel burning efficiency (the waste referred to above)
Increased overall emissions (burned fuel without getting the "work" from
it)
Reduced life of your expensive catalytic converter (hotter gasses are
entering it)
Burned valves and the joys of a trip to the machine shop ($$$)

A person's compression may go up as a result of carbon build-up on
combustion chamber parts (cylinder tops, chamber domes, etc.), but
nobody retimed the valve cams to go along with the carbon. High-test
gas seems as worthwhile a fix as "motor honey" is for ring trouble.
Did I get this right?

Richard

- --
!! NOTE: TO REPLY, REMOVE THE STRING: "REMOVE.THIS.TO.REPLY" FROM MY
ADDRESS !!

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 15:04:36 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2

Richard wrote:

> A person's compression may go up as a result of carbon build-up on
> combustion chamber parts (cylinder tops, chamber domes, etc.), but
> nobody retimed the valve cams to go along with the carbon. High-test
> gas seems as worthwhile a fix as "motor honey" is for ring trouble.
> Did I get this right?

Yes, except that most modern engines have a knock sensor and will
push timing beyond the min allowed for 87 oct gas. You may lose some
performance not using a higher octane, but you will really never know it
for sure, as the knock sensor will keep timing right at the edge. I
would say it's definately not needed in colder weather and a toss up in
wamer weather/heavy towing applications. The only way to know for sure
is to datalog the actual timing and/or kncok sensor activity vs octane
used and other environmental factors.

OX
>
> Richard
>
> --
> !! NOTE: TO REPLY, REMOVE THE STRING: "REMOVE.THIS.TO.REPLY" FROM MY
> ADDRESS !!
>
> == 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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 14:11:25 -0700
From: cassis
Subject: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging

Ok I cant get as technical as you were but I am willing to explain in a
little less technical terminology as to why I do use 93 octane in my Ranger
with a 3.0. When I run the 87 octane gas I get that pinging noise, like
when the timing is a little too advanced, when I am having to go to the
floor with it so to speak. I don't really notice as much until I am towing
and forced to drive a little harder due to the added load on the truck.
When I use the higher octane gas I don't get the pinging noise. Now I am no
expert here but I do have some general knowledge about cars. I do know that
when you get that pinging noise that it is not supposed to be very good on
a motor. Something about burning holes in your pistons or something like
that? Feel free to correct me on that last statement. So my thought was to
run the higher octane gas and not have any pinging noises. I've had my
ranger for over 5 years now and have 98,000 miles on it. Truck still runs
great. I don't think running 93 octane gas has damaged my motor in any way.
Just my opinion here, not trying to start a flame war with anyone.

John Cassis
93' STX 4x4
3.0 - 5-speed

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:52:25 -0700
From: "Tim J. Clevenger"
Subject: FTE Small - Slack in shifter

Hi all,

I've got a 2.3L with the 5 speed, and the shifter is really loose. When =
in gear, I have about 1.5 to 2.5 inches of play in every direction. I =
can even rotate the whole shifter 10 to 20 degrees, and it makes it hard =
to get into gear sometimes. Is there some kind of bushing or something =
that can be replaced? Ford told me that I had to buy a whole new =
shifter housing ($85). If I can get by with a bushing or rebuild kit, =
anybody have a part number?

Regards,

Tim Clevenger
86 Ford Ranger 2WD

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:09:35 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging

Ok I cant get as technical as you were but I am willing to explain in a
little less technical terminology as to why I do use 93 octane in my
Ranger with a 3.0. When I run the 87 octane gas I get that pinging
noise, like when the timing is a little too advanced, when I am having
to go to the floor with it so to speak. I don't really notice as much
until I am towing and forced to drive a little harder due to the added
load on the truck.

When I use the higher octane gas I don't get the pinging noise. Now I am
no expert here but I do have some general knowledge about cars. I do
know that when you get that pinging noise that it is not supposed to be
very good on a motor. Something about burning holes in your pistons or
something like that? Feel free to correct me on that last statement. So
my thought was to run the higher octane gas and not have any pinging
noises. I've had my ranger for over 5 years now and have 98,000 miles on
it. Truck still runs great. I don't think running 93 octane gas has
damaged

Pinging is caused when the fuel ignites before the piston comes all the
way up in return tries to force the piston back down while its on its
way up! Some vehicles say to use 87 but often with little diplacement
engines they seem to do better with at least midgrade. If you advance
your timing and then run high octane gas you will gain some extra hp and
a little better mpg! I cant say for sure but I don't think running high
octane gas is going to ruin your engine just up your fuel cost. Thats
what most the computer chips do is change your timing and require you to
run 93 octane gas. I am fortunate to own a Lightning w/351W and I don't
have to have a chip to change my timing, I have bumped mine from 10
degrees w/87 up to 14 degrees w/ 93. Another part of this equation is
the quality of gas, gas is not the same from one station to another. If
I get Citgo gas I have no problem but when I run Amoco it pings...not
that its the brand at fault or just that station but it does vary! Try
filling up at different stations and see if the pinging stops!

Oh and pinging can burns holes in pistons. Pinging can also be caused by
dirty injectors, throttle body, intake(upper or lower) or valves
anywhere carbon can build up! A bad knock sensor or O2 sensor can also
cause pinging. There are alot of things that cause it just figuring it
out is sometime trial and error!
Chris
94
Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:33:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: DUBCO webtv.net (douglas elliott)
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Slack in shifter

bite the bullet buy a new one . already replaced the secound one in my
87 . it will come out in your hand , then your stuck in whatever gear
you selected last . a new one feels so good you'll think you got a new
truck . its easy to change yourself .


REAL STREET BY DESIGN

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 20:07:27 -0500
From: mercury
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Slack in shifter

Tim J. Clevenger wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a 2.3L with the 5 speed, and the shifter is really loose. When in gear, I have about 1.5 to 2.5 inches of play in every direction. I can even rotate the whole shifter 10 to 20 degrees, and it makes it hard to get into gear sometimes. Is there some kind of bushing or something that can be replaced? Ford told me that I had to buy a whole new shifter housing ($85). If I can get by with a bushing or rebuild kit, anybody have a part number?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Clevenger
> 86 Ford Ranger 2WD
>
> FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

You just described my ranger,(86 4x4,2.3 5spd) If you can pick up on
the shifter and have it work better,(it's kind of hard to shift when
you're pulling it up though) but if it works better the bushing is
definately shot,and unless you find a good one in the scrap yard,you
need to buy the one from ford. I have looked at mine and don't realy see
any way to rebuild it.

I didn't want to pay a lot for it either,so what I did was to try
shimming it up a bit with plastic from a 20oz pop bottle. cut the neck
off right below the thick ring,right where it first starts to round
out,then cut a strip about 3/4 inch thick from the section directly
below that,and then cut a slot in the ring,and slip it up between the
ball and cup on the shifter, you may have to trim it a little so it sits
in there flat. it helped a lot,but didn't make it right. might work for
you too. and it only costs a dime.

merc.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 21:21:01 -0400
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel probs

When I bought my 88 bronc, I nearly had a heart attack when I did the calcs
and found it was getting only 13 mpg.

I looked at the air filter, and sure enough, it was a mess, full of all
kinds of deposits from the iron rich water (it rained a lot on the
coast)......

I changed it, and jumped up to 17 mpg. I average around that in the
city.... can go as high as 25 on the highway.

I would check that, and the fuel filter as well....... also, make sure you
don't have a sticky throttle body..........


Chuck wrote
> I recently aquired a "project vehicle" as an 84 Bronco II with a 2.8L
> V-6,
> with 4-wheel drive, automatic transmission, A/C, PB and PS. It was not
> taken
> care of very well. It gets 13 miles per gallon on the highway, 10
> around
> town, with th efront hubs unlocked. Having been told that it should

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:27:19 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Small - ADMIN: Atlanta Get-together at the Atlanta Motor Speedway

Sorry that I didn't get in touch with the people I promised to
call about this. Been working late.

Anyways, for the FTE gathering at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
(US Ford Truck Fest).....

We'll meet Saturday at 3 at the main entrance ticket office.
This is by the club house and condos, Richard Petty statue is
out front.

Mail me if you intend to be there and I'll send you my phone
number so we can chat. I'd like to bring some folding chairs
and perhaps sit down and chat over a late lunch/early dinner.

Peggy and I will be wearing yellow F100 Supernationals t-shirts.
Just look for the heavy guy with brown hair and a beard (ok, not
a good description, there are a million people like that at
truck shows).

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




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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 20:59:04 -0500
From: Bob Faucett
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2

For a very good FAQ about the composition and properties of gasoline go take
a look at this FAQ:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cs.ruu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/autos/gasoline-faq/.html

For the subject (octane) under discussion here, pay particular attention to
Part 3 (of 4) of the FAQ.

Some of you may already know about this FAQ but I thought I would mention
it. It can get rather technical at times but it does contain some good
information.

Thanks,
BOB




Richard wrote:

> Melvin Montemerlo wrote------------------------------------------------
>
> I talk to Ranger owners that I see getting gas, and all have very strong
> views on whether to use low, medium or high octane. Their views are
> different- but all very strong. I figured that since so many 3.0 auto
> Rangers use 87 octane with no problem, that mine should be able to
> also. I
> tried higher octane, but the pinging persisted.
>
> My Reply-----------------------------------------------------------
> My subject here is the use of high octane fuel in an unmodified engine
> designed for regular gas. I welcome some discussion about this,
> especially if someone feels I'm wrong. I'm most willing to learn.
>
> Engines designed for high octane fuel ("high compression" motors) are
> engineered to take advantage of a longer-burning explosion. That's what
> boosting the octane does: it slows down the burning by a precise
> amount. The controlled burn time is indicated by the fuel's octane
> rating.
>
> The valve timing is part of the engine/octane choreography. What
> happens when you burn high octane gas in a low octane motor is that the
> exhaust valves open while the slower-burning mixture is still burning.
> You lose part of the fuel's "oomph" out the tailpipe. Further, the job
> of cooling the valve castings is done by the cylinder heads; while
> closed against their machined seats, the valves transfer the intense
> heat from the just-completed explosions to the water-cooled head
> castings. Since the high octane mixture is still combusting, expanding
> in your 97-octane motor while rushing past the valves (which are held
> away from their cooling mass) you get the added "benefit" of burned
> valves.
>
> So, the results of filling up a low-octane vehicle with high-octane gas
> are as follows:
> Higher fuel expense
> Reduced fuel burning efficiency (the waste referred to above)
> Increased overall emissions (burned fuel without getting the "work" from
> it)
> Reduced life of your expensive catalytic converter (hotter gasses are
> entering it)
> Burned valves and the joys of a trip to the machine shop ($$$)
>
> A person's compression may go up as a result of carbon build-up on
> combustion chamber parts (cylinder tops, chamber domes, etc.), but
> nobody retimed the valve cams to go along with the carbon. High-test
> gas seems as worthwhile a fix as "motor honey" is for ring trouble.
> Did I get this right?
>
> Richard
>
> --
> !! NOTE: TO REPLY, REMOVE THE STRING: "REMOVE.THIS.TO.REPLY" FROM MY
> ADDRESS !!
>
> == 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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: tarmy webtv.net (tommy oslick jr)
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND

refunds for miss builts4x4 rangers with the wrong antilock brake systems

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:07:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: tarmy webtv.net (tommy oslick jr)
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 1998 RANGER REFUND

okay thanks for the help

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:13:46 EDT
From: Ding060297 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - ford jet chip modules

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with jetchip products..I have just
come across a module that is said to increase horsepower by almost 20 just by
adding this product...I can't believe that this little chip basically can
produce that much horsepower does anyone have one of these or know any info
about it......I own the 1996 ford explorer with the 5.0 v8 and i'm looking to
do a lil beefing up so any help is appreciated.....ding
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:12:56 EDT
From: MadDog15M aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel probs

I also recently bought an 88 Bronco. I am having the same problem. I am only
getting about 13 mpg. I checked out the air filter and it looks like it has
just been replaced, extremely clean. Is there anything else that could be
making me get such horrible gas mileage? If so, what is it?

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:30:42 EDT
From: Ding060297 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Old 84 Bronco II fuel probs

First of all change your fuel filter.. Second go to any lil service center
like a goodyear place or whatever is close to you and look into a cleaner that
is most common called motorvac......Its a cleaner they hook up to the fuel
rails and it runs off this chemical for about 30 minutes or so and it works
well, I recently did it and it made a nice improvement in my performance and
mpg's and i always used a fuel injection cleaner in my tanks every now an
then.....give it a shot it only costs about $60 also clean your throttle body
too that always helps....ding
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 23:37:36 EDT
From: Ding060297 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ranger Pinging: Round 2....


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.