>From kpayne ford-trucks.com Sun Oct 11 06:13:07 1998
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:13:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com (small-list-digest)
To: small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list-digest V2 #285
Reply-To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com


small-list-digest Sunday, October 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 285



=======================================================================
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 - =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Re=3A_FTE_Small_-_=BF=BF=BFIs_cummins_made_by?= =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?_Ford=3F=3F=3F?=
FTE Small - sorry what I wanted to know was if Ford owned Cummins
FTE Small - RE: Hyperchip results..96 explorer
Re: FTE Small - RE: Hyperchip results..96 explorer
FTE Small - Re:
Re: FTE Small - Re:
FTE Small -
FTE Small - Aerostar Height
Re: FTE Small -
FTE Small - I need some help
Re: FTE Small - Aerostar Height
Re: FTE Small - I need some help
FTE Small - ADMIN: September Archives
Re: FTE Small - '91 Explorer
FTE Small - 2.8 engine history
FTE Small - Oxygen Sensor(s)
Re: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history
FTE Small - Print Too Small
FTE Small - Pinging
Re: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history
Re: FTE Small - Pinging
Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small
Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small
Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small
Re: FTE Small - Oxygen Sensor(s)
Re: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:38:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Fox
Subject: FTE Small - =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?Re=3A_FTE_Small_-_=BF=BF=BFIs_cummins_made_by?= =?X-UNKNOWN?Q?_Ford=3F=3F=3F?=

Didn't Ford try to buy Cummins at one point and they deal fell through? I
think Ford has stock in Cummins if im not mistaken.

Robert Fox
95 Supercab Ranger
93 Supercab F-150
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford ranger. com

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Bill Ciocco wrote:

> No. Cummins is made by Cummins. Ford uses some Cummins engines in
> their trucks.
>
>
>
>
> ---Joey Ramsey wrote:

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 07:17:23 PDT
From: "Joey Ramsey"
Subject: FTE Small - sorry what I wanted to know was if Ford owned Cummins

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:34:13 -0400
From: "Maurer, Robert M."
Subject: FTE Small - RE: Hyperchip results..96 explorer

Pete Lawless wrote:
> This is old news but I haven't checked the Ford mail for a few days and
figure I owe Mr. Benguerel a reply.
>
> So since you asked: I don't have the rest of your message to quote but
from what I remember of it it appeared to me that you may not have any
personal, first-hand experience with performance chips or modules. If that
assessment was incorrect I apologize. However, I do... and took
ever-so-slight offense to your statement. I'm not sure why you would advise
some one to "be leery about any chips from Hyperchip or Jet."? On what
basis? Have you been unsatisfied with the performance of either of these
products on your vehicle? Or is it that they "just advance the timing or
modify the shifts points" (amongst other adjustments)? Of course this is
what chips do, they surely don't magicaly create horsepower out of thin air.
"to give a perceived hosepower increase." How do you do that? Hmmm, I must
be imagining the extra mile per gallon I'm getting too.
>
> So my take on your message was that all of us that have purchased and
installed a chip or module on our vehicles are suckers living in a fantasy.
I was very impressed and pleased with the performance that the JET module
added to my tired 1988 Ranger 2.9ltr. And it has worked well with the other
mods I've done since. The truck runs strong, better then when new and the
chip is part of the whole package. Every company that sells Horsepower (or
just about any product for that matter) has a tendancy to embellish the
truth. So what's new? All buyers beware.
>
> Hey, the average Joe could tweek the old engines with little more than a
screwdriver... not any more. JET, Hypertech, Superchip have created a nice
little plug-in performance mod for the modern vehicle that basically does
what it says, is easy to install (or remove), and saves you all that time
tweeking your powerplant yourself (or paying some $75/hour tech to screw it
up for you (sorry techs... I didn't really mean that))..... all for about
$250. Was it worth it.... Yes. Will I buy another one... you bet.

Chris wrote:
>I have to add my 2 cents worth, I think chips that are done on a dyno can
do what they say they can do, but A chip just ordered by picking up the
phone and reading a computer code is a CROCK! Sure it works for some(even
though I bet it could be done better on a dyno) and not for others, but when
you have it tested on dyno and hooked up to the computer at the same time
the results are tremendously better. Not all vehicles are created equal, yes
the can have the same set up but not be equal...thats why factories have
tolerance levels...I personally will not buy a chip without it being done on
a dyno! Sorry if I offended anyone. Its just my opinion(just like a**holes
every has one!)
Chris
94 Lightning #381>

Chris makes the point I was trying to make originally when I said be leery
about "off the shelf" chips. The original question was about a chip for a
96 Explorer, V8. I have been playing with my Mustangs for 5 years, so I
have some knowledge of what I'm saying. I have heard countless people
complain about "no change in performance with a Hypertech chip". So what's
the problem? Any off the shelf chip is designed for the person with a "bone
stock" engine that never plans on making ANY modifications. The best
(smartest) plan of attack is to make all of your engine modifications (MAF,
fuel injection upper/lower intake, throttle body, etc.) and then go to a pro
shop that can put your car on a dyno and burn a custom chip. I also know of
a few places where you can tell them what changes you've made and they can
burn a custom chip. Either path will give excellent results.

"Be leery about Hypertech" to me means to investigate what you are getting
into. I see too many people that get sucked in by the advertised huge
horsepower and torque
increases. I also know of people that add a chip and their seat of the
pants meter tells them they now have more hp, only to have a dyno tell them
different. As a buyer you should talk to people that have used similar
products under similar situations (i.e. have the some engine mods). You
need a chip that has the flexibility to be changed (reburned) as you make
changes to your vehicle.

If anyone bought an off the self chip and is happy with the performance,
great for you. All I know is that when I'm ready for a chip in my 93 Cobra
or 96 Explorer, I'll be going to a shop to get one custom burned (for the
same amount of money). Someone asked for opinions and I gave an
educated/personal experienced answer. What you do with it is up to you.

BTW: who is Mr. Benguerel? I'm the one that made the statements in
question.

Rob Maurer
96 Explorer V8
93 Mustang Cobra
93 Mustang GT (sold)

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 08:49:41 -0600
From: Dave Armbruster
Subject: Re: FTE Small - RE: Hyperchip results..96 explorer



>I have to add my 2 cents worth, I think chips that are done ona dyno can
>do what they say they can do, but A chip just ordered by picking up the
>phone and reading a computer code is a CROCK! Sure it works for
>some(even though I bet it could be done better on a dyno) and not for
>others, but when you have it tested on dyno and hooked up to the
>computer at the same time the results are tremendously better. Not all
>vechicles are created equal, yes the can have the same set up but not be
>equal...thats why factories have tolerance levels...I personally will
>not buy a chip without it being done on a dyno!

I have seen that (I don't know if it is true for all manufacturers) you
give them the computer code from your current ROM and that determines which
series of chip they send you. I'd hope that a _good_ chip programming
company would also tweak the program to individual models/years, etc.

But (and everyone's got a big but, right?) Ford doesn't customize each
program to each vehicle, each computer is the same for a production run,
which uses an adaptive logic controller that can adjust itself a little
each time you drive the truck. It uses all the vehicle parameters,
environmental conditions, etc. to determine what it believes is the right
combination to run the engine and drivetrain it is hooked up to.

By just replacing the ROM, you are just giving the computer new parameters
to use in it's engine controls/management program. In other words, it
still adjusts itself based on the same set of inputs, only to a new set of
targets (the chip you put in). The EEC doesn't use the exact values in
it's ROM as outputs to the engine, it tries to adjust things to get to
them, but it has a certain amount of hysteresis designed in. Which would
probably just negate some of the custom programming you'd do on a dyno
anyway.

I will agree, though, that the chip houses have to design the program with
the assumption that you are popping it into a basicly stock vehicle,
probably with things like K&N, cat-back, Mass Airflow and thottle body
changes. If you have done other mods that they didn't take into account,
then the program wouldn't utilize those to full effect.

>Sorry if I offended anyone
>Its just my opinion(just like a**holes every has one!)
>Chris
>94 Lightning #381

Just my $.02 as well,
Dave
Denver, CO

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:26:34 EDT
From: Bakend aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Re:

In a message dated 10/8/98 7:28:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
wnbracey hotmail.com writes:

>
> I have a 87 Bronco II with the 2.9L V6. When the truck is cold it
> starts up and does not run. I re-start the truck and it runs great.
> Has anyone ever experienced this problem? Any solutions?
>
My 87 Ranger will do the same thing unless I turn the key on and then wait a
few seconds before cranking. Gives it a chance to pump up fuel pressure.
D Baken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:56:45 -0400
From: "AutoTech"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re:

D BAKEN IS RIGHT, MY 88 BRONCO II DOES THE SAME, THE ENGINE IS REBUILT, ALL
SMALL PARTS ON THE ENG ARE NEW, ONLY THING I DIDENT REPLACE WERE THE TWO
FUEL PUMPS, ONE ON THE FRAME RAIL AND THE ONE IN THE GAS TANK.
BILL
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bakend aol.com
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, October 09, 1998 12:28 PM
Subject: FTE Small - Re:


>In a message dated 10/8/98 7:28:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>wnbracey hotmail.com writes:
>
>>
>> I have a 87 Bronco II with the 2.9L V6. When the truck is cold it
>> starts up and does not run. I re-start the truck and it runs great.
>> Has anyone ever experienced this problem? Any solutions?
>>
>My 87 Ranger will do the same thing unless I turn the key on and then wait
a
>few seconds before cranking. Gives it a chance to pump up fuel pressure.
>D Baken
>== 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, 9 Oct 1998 15:05:07 EDT
From: FORD3644 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small -

Hi everyone,
I've got a 87 Ranger Ext. cab 4X4 and i just got it out of the shop for
transmission work. It costed me 1456.50 and they said it was because the
transmission was beyond repair because of some seals around the governer???
How can it not be able to be repaired because of seals???
Mark Jackson
Joelton, TN
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 12:25:48 -0700
From: Richard
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostar Height

I need to know how tall my '92 Aerostar (short version) is, to avoid
crashing it into low-roofed parking garages and the like. Perhaps I've
been looking right at the info and not seeing it, but I've not been able
to find this simple figure.

Can one of you post the height of my '92 Aerostar?

Thanks.

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: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ciocco
Subject: Re: FTE Small -

I don't know about beyond repair, but mine was almost 1800 for a
rebuild. 1400 sounds pretty good to me.




- ---FORD3644 aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> I've got a 87 Ranger Ext. cab 4X4 and i just got it out of the
shop for
> transmission work. It costed me 1456.50 and they said it was because
the
> transmission was beyond repair because of some seals around the
governer???
> How can it not be able to be repaired because of seals???
> Mark Jackson
> Joelton, TN
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 17:58:22 EDT
From: FrdRngrLvr aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - I need some help

Hey yall..I had a 90 ranger than has recently passed away (kinda droppes the
trans) So being a true ford fan, I went out and bought another ranger..only
problem is that the only ones that were in my price range were inline 4's,
used to a 6 but needing a truck i bought it...Now I like the truck but it has
a severe powere sortage...I am look for some ideas from people that have
"suped" up 4 bagers..

My new baby is a 96 stepside regular cab, 5-speed..if you need anything else i
can let you know..any help is much appreciated..

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 18:12:55 -0400
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Aerostar Height

At 12:25 PM 10/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I need to know how tall my '92 Aerostar (short version) is, to avoid
>crashing it into low-roofed parking garages and the like. Perhaps I've
>been looking right at the info and not seeing it, but I've not been able
>to find this simple figure.
>
>Can one of you post the height of my '92 Aerostar?

Maybe you could measure it?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 21:38:11 EDT
From: RReed44450 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - I need some help

Well,

I guess there is the ongoing computer chip debate. Gibson Performance makes a
cat-back system, and there is always the air cleaner mods. I had a '96 Ranger
4 banger and I couldn't take it any longer. I finally went out and got an
Explorer 4.0.

I'd like to know how you make out though.

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 22:59:41 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Small - ADMIN: September Archives

September list archives are now on the web site.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 23:31:24 -0500
From: Mike Fisher
Subject: Re: FTE Small - '91 Explorer

How about the throttle position sensor?

Kenneth C. St.John wrote:

> Here's a good one...what would cause my Explorer to stall when going down a
> steep decline? I have a standard transmision and keep it in 1st gear,
> reving up to about 3000 rpm's while going down the hill. I depress in the
> clutch at just about the bottom and watch my rpm's go straight to "0"???
> The engine starts right up as if nothing has happened. Do you think this
> has to do with the fuel tank/pump? I've had this happen before when
> decelerating quick to a stop on a straight road also but just blew it off as
> it was hard to duplicate.
> Any ideas would be appreciated on this.
>
> Ken
>
> == 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: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 07:58:17 -0500
From: "Larry Brown"
Subject: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history

When did FORD come out with the 2.8 L engine, and what all was it used in?
According to a local wrecking yard here, it was only offered for a couple
years and that doesn't sound right to me. Can anyone clear this up?
Larry

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 07:21:14 -0700
From: "Al Nusbaum"
Subject: FTE Small - Oxygen Sensor(s)

Where is it located? My manual doesn't show the location and I thought I
would take the lazy man's way and ask before crawling in/under the truck.
It's a 1990 Ranger 2.9 Auto. Also, where is the plug for a code reader? I
have looked all over the engine and can't seem to find it. Perhaps if I knew
exactly what it looked like I could locate it.

Thanks all

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:37:23 -0700
From: norm map.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history

Larry Brown wrote:
>
> When did FORD come out with the 2.8 L engine, and what all was it used in?
> According to a local wrecking yard here, it was only offered for a couple
> years and that doesn't sound right to me. Can anyone clear this up?
> Larry
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Hi Larry
I think the 2.8 was only offered in 84 and 85 in Bronco II and
Rangers. It may have been offered in other models but am not sure. Maybe
someone in the gruop is more knowledgeable about this then I.

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:29:47 EDT
From: Blest25913 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Print Too Small

Can anyone tell me why sometimes the print gets smaller and smaller on the
newsletter, until it gets to the point where I can't even read it with a
magnifying glass?
I have a Mac Performa 5200D. It just did it on newsletter #283.
Ron Trampe
'96 Ranger 4X4 3.0 Ext.Cab
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:41:17 EDT
From: Blest25913 aol.com
Subject: FTE Small - Pinging

In a message dated 10/9/98 5:14:05 AM, you wrote:


Subject: FTE Small - sudden pinging

Yesterday afternoon, after 85000+ miles of ping-free motoring
(up and down hills, towing, etc.), with no load (other than a
freeway onramp incline) and great air (clear and about 65 degrees),
my Explorer started making a noise that sounded like _serious_
knocking. It did it again later yesterday afternoon, but this
morning, on a steeper hill, it did not ping or knock at all>>>>>>>

My '96 3.0L engine started doing this at 70K. I replaced the plugs for the
first time, and they were badly worn (about 0.800). This helped, but the
problem didn't completely go away. I switched to 89 octane gas and this
stopped the pinging. I had been using 87. My Check Engine light started coming
on intermittently at about 72K. I'm taking it to the dealer Thu. Maybe by
fixing whatever is causing the Check Engine light to come on, I'll be able to
go back to 87 octane gas.

Ron Trampe
'96 Ranger 4X4 3.0L

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:15:17 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 2.8 engine history

Larry Brown wrote:
>
> When did FORD come out with the 2.8 L engine, and what all was it used in?
> According to a local wrecking yard here, it was only offered for a couple
> years and that doesn't sound right to me. Can anyone clear this up?
> Larry
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Not sure on the years but I know it was offered in Rangers and BroncoIIs
that might have been it though, not sure! They never made it to the fuel
injection stage so they probably wtopped being produced in 84?
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:17:22 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Pinging

Blest25913 aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/9/98 5:14:05 AM, you wrote:
>
>
> Subject: FTE Small - sudden pinging
>
> Yesterday afternoon, after 85000+ miles of ping-free motoring
> (up and down hills, towing, etc.), with no load (other than a
> freeway onramp incline) and great air (clear and about 65 degrees),
> my Explorer started making a noise that sounded like _serious_
> knocking. It did it again later yesterday afternoon, but this
> morning, on a steeper hill, it did not ping or knock at all>>>>>>>
>
> My '96 3.0L engine started doing this at 70K. I replaced the plugs for the
> first time, and they were badly worn (about 0.800). This helped, but the
> problem didn't completely go away. I switched to 89 octane gas and this
> stopped the pinging. I had been using 87. My Check Engine light started coming
> on intermittently at about 72K. I'm taking it to the dealer Thu. Maybe by
> fixing whatever is causing the Check Engine light to come on, I'll be able to
> go back to 87 octane gas.
>
> Ron Trampe
> '96 Ranger 4X4 3.0L

Sounds like you are do for an O2 sensor!
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 12:50:52 EDT
From: Bakend aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small

In a message dated 10/10/98 10:30:48 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
Blest25913 aol.com writes:

> Can anyone tell me why sometimes the print gets smaller and smaller on the
> newsletter, until it gets to the point where I can't even read it with a
> magnifying glass?
> I
Can't tell you why, but just close the window and reopen it and you are back
to the full size!
D Baken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:02:00 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small

At 12:29 PM 10/10/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Can anyone tell me why sometimes the print gets smaller and smaller on the
>newsletter, until it gets to the point where I can't even read it with a
>magnifying glass?
>I have a Mac Performa 5200D. It just did it on newsletter #283.
>Ron Trampe
>'96 Ranger 4X4 3.0 Ext.Cab

Its because binary mime attachments from users of Microsoft
Outlook are getting past the list server filters. If you're
using Outlook, turn MIME off. Eudora doesn't have this
problem when viewing digests.

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:49:46 -0400
From: helotie juno.com (Mark A Helotie)
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Print Too Small

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:02:00 -0400 Ken Payne
writes:

> Its because binary mime attachments from users of
> Microsoft Outlook are getting past the list server filters.
> If you're using Outlook, turn MIME off. Eudora doesn't
> have this problem when viewing digests.

Ken,

The person that originally complained about the type
getting "smaller and smaller" was an AOL user.

IOW, no Eudora, no Pegasus, no Outlook. Just AOL.

But I still agree 100%. Anyone that uses ANYTHING
but "plain-text" in e-mail (and Usenet!) deserves to be
put in time-out. 'Net newbies. ::snork::


Mark :)
[helotie juno.com]





___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 01:08:33 -0400
From: "AutoTech"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Oxygen Sensor(s)

CODE READER IS LOCATED ON THE PASSENGER SIDE, ON THE WHEELHOUSE,8 INCHES
FROM THE FIREWALL, OXYGEN SENSOR IS LOCATED ON THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD ON THE
DRIVER SIDE, AT THE REAR OF THE MANIFOLD.
BILL
- -----Original Message-----
From: Al Nusbaum
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, October 10, 1998 10:22 AM
Subject: FTE Small - Oxygen Sensor(s)


>Where is it located? My manual doesn't show the location and I thought I
>would take the lazy man's way and ask before crawling in/under the truck.
>It's a 1990 Ranger 2.9 Auto. Also, where is the plug for a code reader? I
>have looked all over the engine and can't seem to find it. Perhaps if I
knew
>exactly what it looked like I could locate it.
>
>Thanks all
....


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.