small-list-digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 03 : Number 052



=======================================================================
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 - Re: Re: ranger tonneau covers
RE: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power
FTE Small - Pinging??
Re: FTE Small - Sensors
FTE Small - Re: Re: ranger tonneau covers
Re: FTE Small - Sensors
FTE Small - Re: re:Ranger Bed Cover
Re: FTE Small - ranger tonneau covers-Don Canavan
FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers
Re: FTE Small - Sensors
FTE Small - Over Drive Question
FTE Small - RE:tonneau covers
FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....
Re: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power
Re: FTE Small - Explorer - Engine Pinging
FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:42:10 -0500
From: "Mike McNany"
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Re: ranger tonneau covers

One of the most versatile hard tonneau covers I've seen is one by SNOBEAR.
It opens lengthwise like its hinged in the middle for normal use. But it
also will open outward from the middle to create a stakebed-like bed for
taller loads. Haven't seen the lever system close up so don't ask for
further description of how it does it. One of the neatest things is that it
comes with some crossbars to make a built in ladder/canoe rack. The sides
stay up with out the crossbars. I have a 92 Explorer so I didn't inquire
further abt cost, weight, ect.
Mike

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:01:24 -0700
From: Dave Armbruster
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power

The Root Mean Square of an AC wave is it's average delivered power, in other
words a given Vrms has the same power as a Vdc of the same value. This is
different than peak, which is a measure of the absolute value of the AC
wave. Vrms is actually mathematically an integration of the instantaneous
Voltage divided by it's period, but suffice to say Vrms =.707*Vpeak of a
sine wave is the generalization (.578*Vpeak of a triangle and it's 1:1 for a
square wave). To prove this, shove a non-RMS digital multimeter into a wall
outlet, it will read 167 Vac. But everyone knows that wall outlets are
120V, this is in RMS because when you plug a toaster in you are interested
in it's heating ability (power). In an amplifier, you are putting a the
coil of a linear motor across the outputs, again you are interested in it's
power.

Matthew is right about underpowering a speaker. The problem when you don't
have enough power available to generate the volume you are asking the system
to deliver is you create distortion. This is due to the amplifier hitting
it's max power and "clipping" the top of the wave off. It's rare that you
can truly ruin a speaker with too much clean power (within limits). It's
when you hit a transient in the music and there isn't enough reserve power
to CLEANLY power the speaker that the clipped wave causes damage to the
speaker.

Dave
Denver, CO

> -----Original Message-----
> From:owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
> [SMTP:owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com]
> Sent:Thursday, February 25, 1999 3:31 AM
> To:small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
> Subject:small-list-digest V3 #51
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:59:26 -0800
> From: Pat Brown
> Subject: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power
>
> Matthew writes:
>
> > To be honest to you, peak power and RMS are pretty much the same thing,
> > it's just that RMS has an electrical name to it ( Root Mean Square )
> > when you work the electrical numbers out, the crap comes out pretty much
> > the same.
>
> Well, let's see. For DC or a square wave, that's true. The "Crap" comes
> out
> pretty much the same. But, most of our music is comprised of sine waves,
> and
> the crap becomes pretty different. In fact, for a nice perfect sine,
> peak
> is 1.414 times the rms power, which is not the same. For any other
> waveform,
> you need to go through the math, or get a peak/rms power meter. Oh yeah,
> peak
> power has an electrical name also. It's called "Peak Power".
>
> > Now, the biggest thing to remember is that for the most part, you aren't
> > going to overpower your speakers, most people underpower their preakers,
> > thus blowing them.
>
> Huh?
>
> - --
> Pat Brown
> Sebastopol, California
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:35:56 -0500
From: "Jason Talbot"
Subject: FTE Small - Pinging??

Ok... Since all this Pinging is going on, can someone tell me what it is??
What does it sound like?? What does it feel like?? What does it do?? And
what causes it?? I want to know if my 88 Bronco II is doing it.

Thanks, from a newbe



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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:52:56 -0500
From: Dave Slotter
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Sensors

At 10:47 AM -0800 2/24/99, Adam McLaughlin wrote:
> After reading the list about O2 sensors, I replaced mine in my 1988 BII. It
> had 158 K M on it... Still the original sensor. I'll know more about the
> gas milage when I go to the filling station next week. While I am at it,
> and have a day off, are there any more sensors or valves that should be
> replaced to inscrease my gallons per mile?

Hi Adam. The one sensor which when replaced, will most often (in my
experience) give you the best "bang for the buck" in gas mileage is
the O2 sensor.

However, replacing sensors without knowing if they are operating
within normal parameters is wasting money, imho. Run a computer
diagnostic. With a 1988 BII, you have the EEC-IV ECU. Look up how to
run a KOEO and KOER test. Once you get the hang of it, they are very
simple to run and tell you which sensors to start looking at.
However, just because you get a code for a sensor doesn't mean you
should replace it. You should confirm the computer's readings with
your own meter - by testing voltage and ohms as appropriate. If you
find that the sensor is reporting correctly, perhaps there is a
wiring problem. The computer diagnostics just tell you where to start.

Also, don't assume replacement parts are always good. I have found in
my experience that a significant amount are not and you need to
confirm that any replacement sensors/parts/etc. are good.

I hope this helps. (Standard disclaimers about my advice apply...) Good luck.

- -Dave
- --

ICQ# 16458879 AOL/AIM ID: "Mac XR"
1986 Ford Bronco II Gray Manual 2.9 V6 122K Pittsburgh PA

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:32:24 -0500
From: Don Canavan
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Re: ranger tonneau covers

As far as water resistance, I drove through one hell of a storm while
moving up to college(strong wind, heavy rain, and lots of mist from other
vehicals), not a drop of water got in. It was the first time I had ever
used it in the rain, and I was a little worried. I thought for sure that my
stuff was going to get a little damp, but nope all completely dry. It
installs pretty easy no drilling just clamp the fraim on, and you are done.
I leave my bed covered at all times and so far in the year I have owned it
nobody has messed with it, and I live in a neighbor hood where I do not
leave my trucks windows open or doors unlocked. but I have left stuff
inside and I have not had problems with that either, although some one
could just open the tail gate. I am not sure how much it cost, because I
got it as a gift from my parents. I do know that they got it from a big
auto parts store called "Pepboys". the only problem that I have had with it
is that there are two strips of velcro, that allow you to keep the cover
rolled up, they sometimes flap againts the rear window. it can get anoying.
The thing that I like the best about it is that it can be completely
removed if you don't need it or want it.
>Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:02:52 -0800
>From: Thom Cheney
>Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: ranger tonneau covers
>
>Donald Canavan wrote:
>>
>> I got the greatest soft cover for my 98 ranger. I am very happy with
it. >>let me know if you want to know more.
>
>
>yes.... let's hear more. I am also in the market for a tonneau for my
>'97. How water resistant is your La Bra? I live in Portland, OR & we
>get some occasional rain.
>
>where did you get yours? and how much? any drilling involved in the
>installation? is it secure (meaning, can anyone steal it off the back
>of my truck once installed?)
>- --
>Thom Cheney
>tcgrafx... among other things
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and postin

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:30:45 -0800
From: Adam McLaughlin
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Sensors

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the advice......

At 11:52 AM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:47 AM -0800 2/24/99, Adam McLaughlin wrote:
>> After reading the list about O2 sensors, I replaced mine in my 1988 BII. It
>> had 158 K M on it... Still the original sensor. I'll know more about the
>> gas milage when I go to the filling station next week. While I am at it,
>> and have a day off, are there any more sensors or valves that should be
>> replaced to inscrease my gallons per mile?
>
>Hi Adam. The one sensor which when replaced, will most often (in my
>experience) give you the best "bang for the buck" in gas mileage is
>the O2 sensor.

Yup. Make sure that you get all of the thread compound off of the sensor
head. Learned that the hard way this morning.

>However, replacing sensors without knowing if they are operating
>within normal parameters is wasting money, imho. Run a computer
>diagnostic. With a 1988 BII, you have the EEC-IV ECU. Look up how to
>run a KOEO and KOER test. Once you get the hang of it, they are very
>simple to run and tell you which sensors to start looking at.
>However, just because you get a code for a sensor doesn't mean you
>should replace it. You should confirm the computer's readings with
>your own meter - by testing voltage and ohms as appropriate. If you
>find that the sensor is reporting correctly, perhaps there is a
>wiring problem. The computer diagnostics just tell you where to start.

This sounds like good idea. Maybe I should get out the book and try to see
what the diagnostic has to say.

>Also, don't assume replacement parts are always good. I have found in
>my experience that a significant amount are not and you need to
>confirm that any replacement sensors/parts/etc. are good.

Hmmm... Okay. I hope that my high school friend at Grand Auto has turned me
in the right direction!

>I hope this helps. (Standard disclaimers about my advice apply...) Good luck.

Thanks for the advice, Dave.

Adam

>-Dave
>--
>

> ICQ# 16458879 AOL/AIM ID: "Mac XR"
> 1986 Ford Bronco II Gray Manual 2.9 V6 122K Pittsburgh PA
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
Adam McLaughlin KD6POC
KD6POC JPS.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jps.net/jmclaugh/adam2.htm
ICQ #6147499
No-SSB International #1,000,178
NO-QRP International #1,000,006
AIM "Screen Name" is: kd6poc
"We are the dreamers, and we are the music makers"

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:43:06 -0500
From: Don Canavan
Subject: FTE Small - Re: re:Ranger Bed Cover

I got a question about those hard covers. How easy are they to remove? Say
you had to put something in that was bigger than the height of the cover,
or you just felt like going with out it.
If you got a locking hard cover, will it secure the tailgate too?
I would never trade my soft cover for anything, but you never know I might
change my mind a few years down the road.

>Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:23:38 PST
>From: "Joe Mitchell"
>Subject: FTE Small - Re: Ranger Bed Cover
>
>>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:52:27 -0600
>>From: "Randy Collins"
>>Subject: FTE Small - ranger tonneau covers
>>
>>i'm looking to buy a cover for the bed of my 98 ranger. not sure if i
>>want a soft or hard cover. any recommendations/experiences? appreciate the
>>feedback.
>>
>>ran
>
>First, let me say that I am in the process of trying to find a
>fiberglass cover for my 91, so far all I have uncovered were 800 and 900
>bucks, special order. (yes, that sucks)
>Anyways, I currently have a soft vinyl cover and I would have to say
>that a fiberglass is the way to go. Why?
>1) no flapping around at speeds of 10+ mph
>2) just plain looks better, IMO, blends in more w/ vehicle
>3) One word: Secure. You cant really put anything valuable under a
>softy. Of course, some fiberglass covers come w/ out locks...some...
>
>Those are pretty much the reasons why I wanted a fiberglass. If you're
>looking for which is cheaper, the vinyl cover, of course. But trying to
>keep one clean in the dust storm that is Texas can be a challenge. Just
>thought I'd toss in my 2 cents, for what its worth...
>Joe


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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:53:02 -0500
From: "Anthony Rifici"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - ranger tonneau covers-Don Canavan

>From: Don Canavan


Engineering student at Toledo? I'm in mechanical engineering at Ohio
State.


>The only problem that I have had with it is that there are two strips of
velcro, >that allow you to keep the cover rolled up, they sometimes flap
againts the rear >window. it can get anoying.


I also had this problem on my Ranger and the S10 I had before it.
Fortunately, the Ranger has velcro, the S10 had metal snaps that scratched
up the back of the cab. You may have already thought of this, but I took
care of the problem by shoving the straps under the tonneau and into the
bed. This can be done easily and quickly be undoing the two snaps near each
strap and pushing the straps into the bed.

Tony
94 Ranger Supercab, 4.0L, 5-Speed


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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:21:34 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers

J Cope wrote-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, the biggest thing to remember is that for the most part, you aren't
going to overpower your speakers, most people underpower their preakers,
thus blowing them..

Me -------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really.

J Cope ----------------------------------------------------------------
I had the same thing explained to me. The less power you send to a
speaker, the less control that speaker has. Speaker cones like to move
in
and out in a straight line. When too little power is put to speakers,
the
cone starts "wobbling" and moving around instead of just in and out,
thus
tearing the cone and damaging the speaker...

Me --------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years in audio, I sure picked up a lot of half-baked theories,
but this one takes the prize. You see, if this were true, you couldn't
listen to a symphony, because every time the music got quiet, you'd blow
the speakers. Speakers are kept in alignment by their component
physical parts. Electricity has nothing to do with it. They don't
wobble. Less sound = less power.

Now here's the truth. Full range speakers and woofers are blown out
(physically or electrically) by being fed more power than they can
handle.

Tweeters actually do get fried by insufficient amplifier power (usually
by real puny amps, like less than 2 watts per channel in a car). When
these amps are driven past their design, they generate many times their
rated power in distorted signal. Speaker systems are rated for their
woofer handling power. In, lets say, a 75-watt speaker system, the
tweeters are actually capable of handling something like 5 watts steady
RMS. The reason is simple: it takes lots more energy (on the order of a
million or so, if I remember correctly) to make bass audible vs. the
highs. This is due to 1. inefficiencies in speaker physics, and 2. the
response and equalization of our very own ear/brain audio system. (Now,
when you "crank up the bass," you are really wreaking mayhem on your
ears. The fact that we are, as a society, getting used to extremely
loud low-frequency sound is troubling to me: the human machine isn't up
to the task.

BTW: In solid-state electronics, it has not been an easy task to design
amplifier circuits that sound good when the music is quiet. Class "A"
amps can get this performance, but at the cost of great power
consumption and heat. Advanced circuits appear from time-to-time which
provide good low-level sound without the Class A liabilities.

Classical music and some jazz require good clean reproduction at
_normal_ listening levels. I routinely would advise people buying home
systems on a budget to look for good equipment delivering not more than
45 watts/channel: they actually sound better. What I want is smooth,
musical response with specific distortion characteristics (when they
distort). Lots of people (including some writers) get on the bandwagon
that more power = better sound. This is an utter crock. I'm avoiding a
technical discussion because this is a Ford Truck list.

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:14:37 -0500
From: Dave Slotter
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Sensors

At 9:30 AM -0800 2/25/99, Adam McLaughlin wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for the advice......
>
> At 11:52 AM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 10:47 AM -0800 2/24/99, Adam McLaughlin wrote:
>>> After reading the list about O2 sensors, I replaced mine in my 1988 BII. It
>>> had 158 K M on it... Still the original sensor. I'll know more about the
>>> gas milage when I go to the filling station next week. While I am at it,
>>> and have a day off, are there any more sensors or valves that should be
>>> replaced to inscrease my gallons per mile?
>>
>>Hi Adam. The one sensor which when replaced, will most often (in my
>>experience) give you the best "bang for the buck" in gas mileage is
>>the O2 sensor.
>
> Yup. Make sure that you get all of the thread compound off of the sensor
> head. Learned that the hard way this morning.

The Bronco II (for 1986 at least) uses a HEGO - Heated Exhaust Gas
Oxygen sensor and when I replaced it, had to use a torch to heat it
up enough so I could remove it - it was THAT tight. I also think it
may have been the original O2 sensor (at about 117K miles). I think
it was about time for a replacement!

>>Also, don't assume replacement parts are always good. I have found in
>>my experience that a significant amount are not and you need to
>>confirm that any replacement sensors/parts/etc. are good.
>
> Hmmm... Okay. I hope that my high school friend at Grand Auto has turned me
> in the right direction!

Most parts are good but this is just advice to look out and keep your
eyes open. NAPA of all places gave me a bogus Coolant Temperature
Sensor (CTS) recently. Would I go back to NAPA again? Yes. This is
the first time in years they have given me a bogus part. If this were
another chain, I may to worry, but NAPA has been decent to me.

I had one place that sold me rusted injectors. Shame on me for not
opening up the box and looking at it until I got home! The same
injectors had oil and fingerprints on them - makes you wonder how
they actually managed to rust. I can't believe they sold me a part
"as new" which clearly wasn't. When I returned to the store, the rest
of their stock was in the same condition. Needless to say I don't go
back to that store anymore, as I believe after I left all that just
went back up on the shelf from where it came.

>>I hope this helps. (Standard disclaimers about my advice apply...) Good luck.
>
> Thanks for the advice, Dave.

Glad to help wherever I can.

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:53:45 -0500
From: "Bryan A. Dann"
Subject: FTE Small - Over Drive Question

My 93 Ranger 4.0 with automatic transmission will sometimes not engage
in overdrive.
I have checked all the fuses and all are ok.
Any answers will help.


- --
70 Mustang Mach1 351C-Shaker
93 Ranger STX S/C 4x4
97 Dodge Caravan Sport (wife)


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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:34:10 -0600
From: "Randy Collins"
Subject: FTE Small - RE:tonneau covers

thanks for the feedback, folks. my biggeste reason for wanting a cover is
to simply keep stuff dry. i am ordering a pop-up camper hopefully next
weekend and, when camping, will leave some stuff in the bed of the truck.
security is not a big deal to me as i will not keep anything of value in
it.

what about this softie that works like a "zip-lock" bag? can you open the
tailgate w/o rolling back the tonneau? the ones w/the aluminum frames allow
you to do this. this is important to me.

i definitely like the hard covers better, especially the snug-tops. but $$$
is also a concern. :-(

anyway, thanks for the info.

ran


> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:16:24 EST
> From: FrdRngrLvr AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: ranger tonneau covers
>
> I also looked into the soft covers, but I ended up going for the hard,
just
> for it's ability to hold up to the elemants (i am a vol fireman, and
sparks
> occasionally faal on the bed) But oher than that, I would have probably
gone
> with the soft, cause that cover get heavy after a long day of work..
>
> Jim
> 96 Ranger "wave"
>
> Has anybody figred out what the wave is yet?
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:39:04 -0600
From: "John Cheyney RN, BSN, CCRN"
Subject: FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....

I changed the spark plugs in my 1993 3.0L V-6 today as part of the 60,000 mile maintenance. The first 5 plugs went pretty well. Then I got to cylinder #3 (rear-most plug on passenger's side). Because of the placement of the air conditioner dryer I tried 10 minutes to get at the plug from the top. I could get the socket on the plug but couldn't get the wrench on the socket. After about another 10 minutes of working beneath the truck in about the most uncomfortable position I could imagine I finally got the last plug changed. Thank God I only have to do this every 60,000 miles.


Just for my own education can anybody describe an easier way to get to this plug? Hopefully you can save me some sanity the next time I have to do this.

John Cheyney RN, BSN, BA, CCRN

1213 McHam

Irving, Texas

75062


Email: cheyne19 idt.net

jcheyn childmed.dallas.tx.us


"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to
prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Jeremiah 29:11
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:20:13 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power

Pat Brown wrote:
>
> Matthew writes:
>
> > To be honest to you, peak power and RMS are pretty much the same thing,
> > it's just that RMS has an electrical name to it ( Root Mean Square )
> > when you work the electrical numbers out, the crap comes out pretty much
> > the same.
>
> Well, let's see. For DC or a square wave, that's true. The "Crap" comes
> out
> pretty much the same. But, most of our music is comprised of sine waves,
> and
> the crap becomes pretty different. In fact, for a nice perfect sine,
> peak
> is 1.414 times the rms power, which is not the same. For any other
> waveform,


Thank you.. I was going to let that statement lie but since someone
else picked it up I'll add my 2 coins. I have meters on my
transmitter; one is peak and one is RMS, I would be glad to whistle in
the microphone and let you see if the readings are anywhere near the
same! IMHO RMS is the best figure to use for evaluation of differing
equipment.

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:12:55 -0700
From: "Ken St.John"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Explorer - Engine Pinging

Well...I started noticing the pinging when I had about 20K on the engine.
At present, I have 56K (I bought it new but kept it locked up in Storage
while working over-seas, taking it out every year and putting about 1000
miles on it). I can't recall if this was a problem after purchase.
Anyway, any other suggestions on this? I'd like to get this solved soon as
I'm thinking about putting a NOS kit in it.
Ken
- ----------
From: Ding060297 AOL.COM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Explorer - Engine Pinging
....


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.