small-list-digest Saturday, February 27 1999 Volume 03 : Number 053



=======================================================================
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 - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow
FTE Small - Tonneau and others
Re: FTE Small - Tonneau and others
RE: FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers
FTE Small - Peak vs RMS power
FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....
Re: FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....
Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow
Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow
Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow
RE: FTE Small - Hey Ken, stereo list maybe
RE: FTE Small - Better bass suggestions?
RE: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power
RE: FTE Small - Hey Ken, stereo list maybe
RE: FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 05:00:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Ciocco
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow

Take the TV stories with a grain of salt. The environmentalists
(socialists/communists) HATE the new Ford Excursion, as they do
anything that is an expression of the free market or freedom in
general. The news stories are all carrying a negative slant.

It looks like this vehicle will be bigger than a Chevy Suburban and
will probably get about the same mileage. It will be a much better
product just by definition (Ford).





_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:20:59 -0800 (PST)
From: dixiedoo uky.campuscwix.net
Subject: FTE Small - Tonneau and others

Hi-
I have a 98 Ranger and have been checking out covers, what about the new
"roll-top" variety that opens out of sight by the turn of the key, and is
somewhere in between the strength of the hard and soft covers? I sure like
the idea but never have seen one to judge firsthand. Anybody else seen one?
George


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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:25:47 -0500
From: "Anthony Rifici"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Tonneau and others

>Hi-
>I have a 98 Ranger and have been checking out covers, what about the new
>"roll-top" variety that opens out of sight by the turn of the key, and is
>somewhere in between the strength of the hard and soft covers? I sure like
>the idea but never have seen one to judge firsthand. Anybody else seen one?
>George
>

I've seen a few of them. Personally, I think that they are more for
function than aesthetics. The flat rollaway top is accompanied by large
side rails and a large front piece to house the tracks and the roll,
respectively. It seems like a fantastic product for those who use their
trucks for work. It provides rugged, lockable, relatively secure storage,
that can be easily opened and closed and still allow you to carry tall
loads. I have even seem some that are short, so that you can use them with
a truck box. Unfortunately, of the ones I've seen, they don't look very
good (my opinion). They are not smooth like a hard or soft cover. In
short, if looks are the most important, you can do better. If lockable easy
access storage that can still handle tall loads is your priority, they seem
like a good idea.
I doubt that it will be too long before they come out with one that
combines the utility with smooth good looks (unless they already have and I
missed it).

Hope that helps,
Tony
'94 Ranger Supercab, 4.0L, 5-Speed, soon to have
a new intake manifold gasket if things go according to plan tomorrow.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:05:55 -0500
From: J Cope
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers

Y'know, as harsh and grating as your reply was, I appreciate you setting me straight. I stand corrected.

JC

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:58:10 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Peak vs RMS power

I think it was Matthew who wrote ------------------

...most of our music is comprised of sine waves...

Me ----------------------------------------------------------------

There has never been an acoustical musical instrument capable of
producing a sine wave. One of the delights of traditional (as opposed
to electronic) instruments is the distinct "color" of their sounds,
which are produced by the "imperfections" of the harmonic content. This
is what makes the sounds of acoustical instruments so interesting to the
ear, a quality that is so very difficult to obtain in the world of
electronically-sourced sound. Electronic sound is intrinsicly too pure,
too perfect, and must be intentionally "colored-up."

The sound of a sine wave is totally dull and lifeless: boring. The
closest thing I ever worked with in the real world is a tuning fork, and
even that is slightly imperfect.

Richard


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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:11:34 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....

"John Cheyney RN, BSN, CCRN" wrote ------------------

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.

Me ------------------------------------------------------------------

But John, please tell us what kind of vehicle your 3.0 motor lives in.
I mean, on my vehicle with a 3.0, the dryer is up front, totally
blocking the heater core hose junctions, requiring a $160 investment in
R-12 refrigerant to replace the heater core. BTW, mine is that famous
'92 Aerostar.

Richard

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:37:19 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Purposeless Ranting....

"John Cheyney RN, BSN, CCRN" wrote:
>
> 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).

Welcome to my world. Seriously though; what type of vehicle is the 3.0
in and I can give you the easier set up.

> 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.

My arms are very flexible and I have a high tolerance for pain and
heat.. helps me a lot!


Tim Turner/Manic Mechanic
Custer Auto Repair
Wilmington NC
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:04:14 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow

Bill Ciocco wrote:
>
> Take the TV stories with a grain of salt. The environmentalists
> (socialists/communists) HATE the new Ford Excursion, as they do
> anything that is an expression of the free market or freedom in
> general. The news stories are all carrying a negative slant.

I'm going to try to stay rational here.. It's a Foot longer than the
Suburban and it's projected to get 12 MPG. SO WHAT! If the emissions
truly do fit the LEV standard it's as "green" as a a LEV Honda Civic!
All the attacks I've seen have been from an environmental stand-point
and I dont see it as viable. I guess I should use a mid 70's 460 to
haul a serious load with pollutants off the scale than the new Excursion
that barely budges the meter(s).
words..>

> It looks like this vehicle will be bigger than a Chevy Suburban and

By being one Foot longer it's a thing to be hated by the
interest group here>.. I dont like the media for other reasons, but
have even *MORE* reasons now. Other than the Edsel the OEMs build what
the people *WANT*. (For those that watch the Simpsons I'm reminded of
the 'Canyonero'). I guess there *IS* a market for this 3 1/2 ton
behemoth and I'll be working on them soon. If you need a serious
hauling vehicle than get an Excursion and lets show the 'greenies' they
dont know squat about how trucks are really used.

> will probably get about the same mileage. It will be a much better
> product just by definition (Ford).

Damn right! Even if it didnt I'd support it over the CrudBurban.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:37:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Diana Slyter
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow

I'm an environmentalist. As long as Ford offers a diesel engine in it I
love the Excursion. Can you imagine a more efficent way to haul a crew of
9 workers and a trailer full of gear?

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

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Bill Ciocco wrote:

> Take the TV stories with a grain of salt. The environmentalists
> (socialists/communists) HATE the new Ford Excursion, as they do
> anything that is an expression of the free market or freedom in
> general. The news stories are all carrying a negative slant.
>
> It looks like this vehicle will be bigger than a Chevy Suburban and
> will probably get about the same mileage. It will be a much better
> product just by definition (Ford).
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >
> == 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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:59:14 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Ford Excursion to be officially revealed tomorrow

Diana Slyter wrote:
>I
> love the Excursion. Can you imagine a more efficent way to haul a crew of
> 9 workers and a trailer full of gear?

Nope, and glad I don't have to plunk down the $40K to figure out how.
Let the greenies whine... gas is cheap & emissions are so low these days
it is laughable to see them complain.

Meanwhile, since it's just me, wife, small kid & the wonder beagle...
I'll stick to my easily parked and fueled Ranger Supercab and it's
accompanying $214 per month payment.

- --
Thom Cheney
tcgrafx... among other things
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:26:43 -0500
From: Burnett
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Hey Ken, stereo list maybe

JJ Thomas wrote:
>
> What destroys speakers from an under powered amp is clipping. When you
> crank up your amp, and it has no more to give, it lops of the top and
> bottom of the signal (clips the signal) and in doing so sends DC to the
> speaker. It is the DC that burns out the voice coil. It does not make
any
> physical changes to the speaker, well unless you send it lots of DC...
>
This is absolutely correct - by far most speakers are destroyed by clipping
the output from the amp. This is also more typically a problem with
tweeters, which have very thin voice coil wires, than with woofers which
tolerate abuse somewhat better.

However, I have heard of (but never actually seen) speakers that were
destroyed when so much power was applied that the woofer cone literally was
blown out of the enclosure. This isn't something that I would want to be
listening to at the time it happened!!

Burnett 89 BII
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:52:58 -0500
From: Burnett
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Better bass suggestions?

OFrdRngrLvr AOL.COM wrote:
>
> have an extended cab..10's are the way to go...but make sure that when
you run
> your amp you bridge i into mono then split it, you will get much
> deeper/louder/cleaner bass this way... hope that this helps..
>
It would be a little more accurate to say bridge the amp into mono and then
wire the speakers in parallel. This both takes advantage of the higher
ratings in bridged mode of some amps and takes advantage of the higher
power output to a low impedance load found with many amps.

Two important considerations:

1. Make sure the amp is designed for bridging (usually there is a switch.)
Trying to bridge an amp not designed for it will blow the amp and possibly
the speakers.

2. Make sure that the amp is rated for a 1-2 ohm load. Wiring 2 speakers in
parallel halves the impedance of the load seen by the amp. If the amp can't
handle this things won't go well. Fortunately, many high-end car audio amps
are designed with low impedance drive capability.

Hope this helps!!

Burnett 89 BII

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:52:46 -0500
From: Burnett
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Re: Peak vs RMS power

Pat Brown wrote:
>
> Yup. Good advice. Just remember that power ratings on amplifiers are
> pretty questionable. Kind of like horsepower ratings on compressors
>
Fortunately, things started to get better a little more than 10 years ago.
Every one used to rate car audio amps using pretty wacky test procedures -
anything to get the biggest wattage rating!! Then consumers started to wise
up and the industry had to clean up (following the path of the home audio
industry) by rating their products more accurately. Even when the
advertising claims an exaggerated power rating, checking the spec sheet
will often reveal a more accurate real world rating.

What you want to look for is a rating that looks something like this:

50 watts per channel minimum RMS at 4 ohms, both channels driven, from
20-20,000 Hz, with no more than 0.08% total harmonic distortion.

This gives you almost all the info you need to properly compare different
brands and models. Any manufacturer that provides all of this info is
generally a reputable one. Watch out for companies that don't provide the
full range of specs.

Sometimes ratings are given for different impedances (ohms) in which case
you generally want to compare the 4 ohm ratings (for car audio.) Also, the
distortion figure is not usually really relevant. The important things is
that it demonstrates the manufacturer based the rating on real world
capability and not at an outrageous distortion level of say 5 or 10%. Music
played with this much distortion would sound horrible.

Finally, while continuous RMS power is more significant than continuous
peak power, keep in mind that peak power is different from dynamic power.
Continuous RMS power measures an amp's ability to sustain its output for an
extended period of time. Dynamic power measures an amp's ability to provide
a burst of power, for example on a very brief, loud transient in the music.
Dynamic RMS power can be significantly higher than continuous RMS power,
often double, and can affect the sound quality of the amp. While not many
car audio companies report this spec., I would lean towards ones that did
when it came time to buy.

Burnett 89 BII
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:35:35 -0500
From: Burnett
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Hey Ken, stereo list maybe

Tim Turner wrote:
>
>
> rgstein pacbell.net wrote:
> >
> > Despite my being an audio expert, as you may guess, I think that
putting
> > an audiophile system into a vehicle is lunacy; road noise defeats the
> > whole concept (I won't explain why now).

For many years I was concerned about this. Then I actually installed an
audiophile system in my truck, and I haven't looked back since. Road is
generally easy to overcome and even the wind noise generated when driving
70-75 mph can be all but obliterated with enough power matched to the right
speakers. The only drawback to the whole idea is that it typically takes a
lot more money to achieve good sound quality in a car than it does in the
home. (Note that there is much, much more expensive equipment available in
home audio - this isn't what I'm talking about.)

> THANK YOU! there is no need for Mega-Watts of power in a vehicle other
> than competition. Just as I dont run open headers and a full race cam
> at a stop light why do I hear competition class radios booming through
> my window? (Not directed at you Richard; rhetorical.) For that matter
> in my RF transmitters I dont use over 150 Watts and I can talk around
> the world.. why do I need more in my stereo?)

Not always true. Overcoming road noise at highway speeds can require a LOT
of power. My car system has a 4x35 watt amp and a 2x100 watt amp - totaling
340 watts RMS. (and yes, these ratings are continuous into 4 ohms from
20-20,000 Hz with low distortion.) This I find to be sufficient but not
overwhelming. It's interesting to note that the volumes that work well on
the road often seem too loud when I pull off the highway. As many here have
posted, the important thing is to have respect for your 'neighbors.' Don't
blast your system in urban settings, or any setting for that matter, where
the noise is likely to disturb others.

Also, it's not entirely fair to compare radio transmission power to an
audio amp's power output. Your transmission power has no effect on the
volume that the receiver of your signal hears (technically this isn't
entirely true.) The audio power output of the recipient's radio, be it 4
watts or 400 watts, coupled with the volume control setting is much more
relevant.

I guess my point is - let's stop bashing people for having "too much" power
and start focusing on the real issue of being disrespectful of others by
playing your system too loudly in an improper environment.

Regards,

Burnett 89 BII
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 01:08:46 -0500
From: Burnett
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Blowing loudspeakers

rgstein pacbell.net wrote:

> 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.

Well, not quite the truth. As has been mentioned in several posts, too
little power can also blow speakers. Make no mistake about this.

> 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.

If I'm not mistaken, all amps behave this way unless they have built in
clipping protection.

> distort). Lots of people (including some writers) get on the bandwagon....

---

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.