From: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com (small-list-digest)
To: small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list-digest V3 #205
Reply-To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


small-list-digest Friday, August 13 1999 Volume 03 : Number 205



=======================================================================
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 - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II
Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II
Re: FTE Small - Replacing the Radius Arm Bushing
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
FTE Small - 4.0 Explorer dies on acceleration
FTE Small - Aerostar Transmission Rebuild
Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II
Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
FTE Small - oil sender location
Re: FTE Small - oil sender location
RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:39:10 -0500
From: "Herring, Bobby"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have problems with
clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot of
noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only does it
when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something. Only
60k miles. Everything else is great.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
>
> >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the
same
> >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent
racket
> >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
.......
> >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0
engine
> >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really this
noisy
> >?
> >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best vehicle
> >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
intake
> >which sounded good.
>
> My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was wrong
> until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and Explorers
in
> parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the 4.0L
> between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995 marked the
> onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was different in
> the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
>
> Tony
> 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
>
> == 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, 12 Aug 1999 09:55:53 -0400
From: "Kenneth J. Nagy"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

My '96 Explorer with ~ 65K miles starts and runs very quiet. I've never
noticed any of the problems you guys are experienecing. Oil is changes
every 3-4K miles, and I'm very happy with the truck.

Later,
Ken

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Herring, Bobby
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre


> My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have problems
with
> clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot of
> noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only does it
> when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something. Only
> 60k miles. Everything else is great.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> >
> > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the
> same
> > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent
> racket
> > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
> .......
> > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0
> engine
> > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really
this
> noisy
> > >?
> > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best vehicle
> > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> intake
> > >which sounded good.
> >
> > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
wrong
> > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
Explorers
> in
> > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the 4.0L
> > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995 marked
the
> > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was different
in
> > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> >
> > Tony
> > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> >
> > == 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

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:01:57 -0700
From: Ray Scheidnes
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

My 94 Ranger 4.0 is "quiet" as far as I can tell - except for the 2.5"
exhaust, Bullet muffler, JBA headers and KKM air induction kit. But, I like
the sound that it makes with all of the modifications. The motor has 66k
miles on it and runs smooth. I feed it good gas (usually 89 or 87 ocatane)
and change the oil every 3 - 4000 miles. Doesn't sound like a diesel as far
as I can tell. Thinking about running one of the sythetic oils, like Syntex
or something. Anybody have any experience with pure synthetic oil in the
4.0? Is it worth the extra money?

> ----------
> From: Herring, Bobby[SMTP:BHerring txfb-ins.com]
> Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:39 AM
> To: 'small-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
>
> My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have problems
> with
> clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot of
> noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only does it
> when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something. Only
> 60k miles. Everything else is great.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> >
> > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the
> same
> > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent
> racket
> > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
> .......
> > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0
> engine
> > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really
> this
> noisy
> > >?
> > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best vehicle
> > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> intake
> > >which sounded good.
> >
> > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
> wrong
> > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
> Explorers
> in
> > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the 4.0L
> > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995 marked
> the
> > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was different
> in
> > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> >
> > Tony
> > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> >
> > == 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
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:09:47 +0300
From: Bolte Brent
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

The LeSabre may have gotten that kind of MPG on the highway,
but you have to remember that at highway speeds aerodynamic
drag makes the biggest difference in fuel economy, not the
vehicle weight. The Explorer ( and the Ranger for that matter )
sit up much higher and have a lot larger frontal area than the
LaSabre would've had so the aerodynamic drag at highway
speeds is much higher and therefore the big hit in highway
fuel economy. Vehicle weight has much more of an affect
on in town fuel economy where you are constantly having to
get the weight moving from standing starts.
The S10 Blazers use the 4.3L V6 and yes they do get more
power out of them, but they run so darn rough. I know about
15 people who have had S10 type Blazers over the years and
I've never been in one yet that could actually sit and idle
anywhere close to what I would call smooth and in the area
of engine noise they rank right up there with the Ford 4.0L as
a noisy running engine ( and in most cases I would say they
are worse although it is a different kind of noise ). 25MPG
on the highway in an S10 Blazer???? You should have taken
that one back to GM so they could figure out what they did
differently on it than they've done on all of the other ones they've
built. Again of the 15 or so people I've known who have owned
S10 Blazers over the years ( all the way from 1992's to 1999's )
I've only known one of them to ever get over 21MPG on the
highway and that was only 21.3 or something. Possibly if you
were driving a 2WD version on a completely flat road with no wind
and no extra accessories on ( like A/C ) or if you take as stock
Blazer and modify it to death as you did with your 93 you might
be able to push that kind of MPG out of one, but I still don't believe
you could get even close to that on a consistent basis with a stock
S10 Blazer ( and the 15 or so people I know who've owned them
can prove that ).
Two catalytic converters on a 4.0L Explorer?? I've owned 4 Explorers
since they came out in 1991 ( all with the pushrod 4.0L V6 ) and I
don't think any of them ever had 2 catalytic converters ( my newest
is a 1997 ). They may have started putting 2 on the 1998 or 1999
Explorers when they certified them with the EPA as low emission
vehicles ( they are low emission for their vehicle category and will
pass the standard emission output tests for the passenger car
category as well ). Being "Environmentally Correct" means you
have to make some sacrifices at times. If cleaning up the exhaust
emissions means putting on 2 converters and lowering mileage and
power output a little bit I guess that's what we'll have to take. Its nice
to see that Ford is at least taking some initiative to try and clean up
the emissions that are coming out of our vehicles. If the other auto
makers in the US and Europe would take the same initiative ( the
Japanese have already made great advancements in this area ),
maybe we would be able to slow down the large amount of damage
our vehicle emissions are making to the environment we have to
live in ( don't believe global warming is real, just wait a few more
years ). GM on the other hand could care less how environmentally
sound ( with the exception of the EV1 ) or for that matter how safe
their vehicles are as long as they can move them off the dealers
lots and make a buck in the process ( as evidenced by the S10
Blazers POOR rating in every crash test they have ever been tested
in or the exploding side mount pickup fuel tanks that never got
recalled but have killed more people than the Ford Pinto ever did ).

Later, Brent


On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, David Cooley

> heck,
> look at GM... The 3800 V6 makes 215HP and almost 300 Lb/ft torque
normally
> aspirated. Supercharged it makes 240 or 245HP and 330-340 lb/ft... I had
> the NA version in a Buick LeSabre (Not much lighter than the explorer!)
and
> routinely got 29-31 MPG on the freeway at 70-75 with the AC running... The

> S10 Blazers use the 4.3L V6 and they were rated 200HP in 93, and are now
> 195HP. They also get 25MPG on the freeway...
> One thing I have found out about Ford, is they like to drown the engine in

> fuel and retard the timing to keep it from pinging, then have to use 2
> catalytic convertors to get emissions clean enough to pass. My 93 Blazer
I
> used to have wound up with a JET chip, K&N air filter, Edelbrock TES
> headers and a 3" exhaust with no cat... Emissions on a sniffer were clean

> enough to pass, but it would fail visual due to the lack of a cat... It
> also ran 14.5 sec's in the 1/4 mile and 0-60 was 7.1 sec's. (much improved

> over stock!) and still got the 25 MPG.

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:27:30 -0400
From: "Jesse A. Edwards"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

Ray,

For the past year, I have used synthetic Mobil 1 and Mobil oil filter in my '94
Ranger 4.0 Splash Extend cab 4x4 - 55,000 miles. I too change oil every 3-4000
miles. Am very pleased so far.

The truck recently developed a shudder/minor vibration at 15 mph - I think it
might be the fan clutch (at least I'll start there). Any ideas? Thanks.

Jerry Edwards
Asheville, NC
Phubby bellsouth.net

Ray Scheidnes wrote:

> My 94 Ranger 4.0 is "quiet" as far as I can tell - except for the 2.5"
> exhaust, Bullet muffler, JBA headers and KKM air induction kit. But, I like
> the sound that it makes with all of the modifications. The motor has 66k
> miles on it and runs smooth. I feed it good gas (usually 89 or 87 ocatane)
> and change the oil every 3 - 4000 miles. Doesn't sound like a diesel as far
> as I can tell. Thinking about running one of the sythetic oils, like Syntex
> or something. Anybody have any experience with pure synthetic oil in the
> 4.0? Is it worth the extra money?
>
> > ----------
> > From: Herring, Bobby[SMTP:BHerring txfb-ins.com]
> > Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:39 AM
> > To: 'small-list ford-trucks.com'
> > Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> >
> > My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have problems
> > with
> > clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot of
> > noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only does it
> > when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something. Only
> > 60k miles. Everything else is great.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> > >
> > > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the
> > same
> > > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent
> > racket
> > > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
> > .......
> > > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0
> > engine
> > > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really
> > this
> > noisy
> > > >?
> > > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best vehicle
> > > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> > intake
> > > >which sounded good.
> > >
> > > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
> > wrong
> > > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
> > Explorers
> > in
> > > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the 4.0L
> > > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995 marked
> > the
> > > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was different
> > in
> > > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> > >
> > > == 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
> >
> == 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, 12 Aug 1999 07:54:37 -0700
From: Ray Scheidnes
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

Thanks, Jesse.
I have heard that Mobil 1 is good stuff. Did you ever use conventional oil
before the Mobil 1, and if you did, was there any difference that you
noticed? Maybe it ran smoother or something? I've also heard that
synthetics don't break down anywhere near as fast as conventionals do, so
you supposedly don't need to change synthetics as often...
I don't know of any shudders/vibrations in my truck. But, sounds like the
fan clutch is a good place to start looking. I've been lucky, I guess - and
I've taken very good care of mine. I recently developed an annoying squeak
that I could only narrow down to the front driver's side corner. I searched
and searched, checked everything from body mounts to the battery... Finally
narrowed it down to the rubber pad that contacts the underside of the hood
when it's closed. Needed some cleaning and some silicone gel lube and it
the squeek totally disappeared... amazing.
Anyway, thanks for the input on the oil.

> ----------
> From: Jesse A. Edwards[SMTP:phubby bellsouth.net]
> Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 7:27 AM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
>
> Ray,
>
> For the past year, I have used synthetic Mobil 1 and Mobil oil filter in
> my '94
> Ranger 4.0 Splash Extend cab 4x4 - 55,000 miles. I too change oil every
> 3-4000
> miles. Am very pleased so far.
>
> The truck recently developed a shudder/minor vibration at 15 mph - I think
> it
> might be the fan clutch (at least I'll start there). Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Jerry Edwards
> Asheville, NC
> Phubby bellsouth.net
>
> Ray Scheidnes wrote:
>
> > My 94 Ranger 4.0 is "quiet" as far as I can tell - except for the 2.5"
> > exhaust, Bullet muffler, JBA headers and KKM air induction kit. But, I
> like
> > the sound that it makes with all of the modifications. The motor has
> 66k
> > miles on it and runs smooth. I feed it good gas (usually 89 or 87
> ocatane)
> > and change the oil every 3 - 4000 miles. Doesn't sound like a diesel as
> far
> > as I can tell. Thinking about running one of the sythetic oils, like
> Syntex
> > or something. Anybody have any experience with pure synthetic oil in
> the
> > 4.0? Is it worth the extra money?
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Herring, Bobby[SMTP:BHerring txfb-ins.com]
> > > Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:39 AM
> > > To: 'small-list ford-trucks.com'
> > > Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> > >
> > > My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have
> problems
> > > with
> > > clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot
> of
> > > noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only
> does it
> > > when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something.
> Only
> > > 60k miles. Everything else is great.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > > > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > > > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> > > >
> > > > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had
> the
> > > same
> > > > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the
> intermittent
> > > racket
> > > > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for
> sure
> > > .......
> > > > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the
> 4.0
> > > engine
> > > > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all
> really
> > > this
> > > noisy
> > > > >?
> > > > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best
> vehicle
> > > > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> > > intake
> > > > >which sounded good.
> > > >
> > > > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
> > > wrong
> > > > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
> > > Explorers
> > > in
> > > > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the
> 4.0L
> > > > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995
> marked
> > > the
> > > > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was
> different
> > > in
> > > > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> > > >
> > > > == 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
> > >
> > == 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
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:53:59 -0400
From: "william.hickey"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

the S10 Blazers use the 4.3L V6 and yes they do get more
power out of them, but they run so darn rough. I know about
15 people who have had S10 type Blazers over the years and
I've never been in one yet that could actually sit and idle
anywhere close to what I would call smooth and in the area
of engine noise they rank right up there with the Ford 4.0L as
a noisy running engine ( and in most cases I would say they
are worse although it is a different kind of noise ).

I have a 86 Pontiac Bonneville (the last of the rear wheel drive Bonnies) that
has
the 4.3 V6 and 73k miles on it. From what I have heard, GM ran out of the
smaller 3.? V6s
and substituted the 4.3 half way through the production run for the 1986
models. It has
always been a VERY noisy and rough running engine ever since it was new.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:10:39 -0400
From: "william.hickey"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

Since there appears to be conflicting views and experiences with the noises
coming from these 4.0 engines perhaps I should go to a dealer and listen to
another 99 4.0 V6 on the lot and compare it to mine (99 4.0). I'l
update yall with the comparison......
Bill





owner-small-list ford-trucks.com on 08/12/99 11:51:36 AM
Please respond to small-list ford-trucks.com SMTP
To: small-list ford-trucks.com SMTP
cc:
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

My '96 Explorer with ~ 65K miles starts and runs very quiet. I've never
noticed any of the problems you guys are experienecing. Oil is changes
every 3-4K miles, and I'm very happy with the truck.

Later,
Ken

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Herring, Bobby
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre


> My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have problems
with
> clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot of
> noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only does it
> when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something. Only
> 60k miles. Everything else is great.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> >
> > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the
> same
> > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent
> racket
> > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
> .......
> > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0
> engine
> > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really
this
> noisy
> > >?
> > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best vehicle
> > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> intake
> > >which sounded good.
> >
> > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
wrong
> > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
Explorers
> in
> > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the 4.0L
> > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995 marked
the
> > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was different
in
> > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> >
> > Tony
> > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> >
> > == 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

== 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, 12 Aug 1999 10:40:49 -0500
From: "Herring, Bobby"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

My 97 Explorer 4.0 auto, manufactured in Oct 96, has two converters. The
pipes come down and back, then a converter each and back some more. Then
they "y" together and come out in a single tail pipe.
Bobby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bolte Brent [mailto:Brent.Bolte kone.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:10 AM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> -----snip-----
> Two catalytic converters on a 4.0L Explorer?? I've owned 4 Explorers
> since they came out in 1991 ( all with the pushrod 4.0L V6 ) and I
> don't think any of them ever had 2 catalytic converters ( my newest
> is a 1997 ). They may have started putting 2 on the 1998 or 1999
> Explorers when they certified them with the EPA as low emission
> vehicles ( they are low emission for their vehicle category and will
> pass the standard emission output tests for the passenger car
> category as well ).
> -----snip-----
> Later, Brent
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:52:23 -0400
From: David Cooley
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 05:09 PM 8/12/1999 +0300, you wrote:
>The LeSabre may have gotten that kind of MPG on the highway,
>but you have to remember that at highway speeds aerodynamic
>drag makes the biggest difference in fuel economy, not the
>vehicle weight. The Explorer ( and the Ranger for that matter )
>sit up much higher and have a lot larger frontal area than the
>LaSabre would've had so the aerodynamic drag at highway
>speeds is much higher and therefore the big hit in highway
>fuel economy. Vehicle weight has much more of an affect
>on in town fuel economy where you are constantly having to
>get the weight moving from standing starts.


Around town, on my 3 mile drive to work, I routinely got 22 MPG. I didn't
drive it easy either.


>The S10 Blazers use the 4.3L V6 and yes they do get more
>power out of them, but they run so darn rough. I know about
>15 people who have had S10 type Blazers over the years and
>I've never been in one yet that could actually sit and idle


Only time I had an idle problem with mine was when the Linear EGR actuator
went south... It was leaking exhaust into the intake all the time. Dealer
fixed it under warranty and said that they had a TSB out and it was a VERY
common problem.




>Possibly if you
>were driving a 2WD version on a completely flat road with no wind
>and no extra accessories on ( like A/C ) or if you take as stock
>Blazer and modify it to death as you did with your 93 you might
>be able to push that kind of MPG out of one, but I still don't believe
>you could get even close to that on a consistent basis with a stock
>S10 Blazer ( and the 15 or so people I know who've owned them
>can prove that ).

Mine got that stock, and I was living in TX at the time... Had it for 3
years and the driving was through hills and flats... Took it to California
twice and the average MPG from that trip (Down I-10 the whole way) was
25. I thought the mods I made would kill the mileage, but didn't seem to
affect it unless I had my foot in it around town (I did that alot! Had
295-50-15's on the rear and it would light them into 2nd gear at anything
over 1/2 throttle with the auto trans... it was 2 wheel drive and had 3.42
gears).




>Two catalytic converters on a 4.0L Explorer?? I've owned 4 Explorers
>since they came out in 1991 ( all with the pushrod 4.0L V6 ) and I
>don't think any of them ever had 2 catalytic converters ( my newest
>is a 1997 ). They may have started putting 2 on the 1998 or 1999
>Explorers when they certified them with the EPA as low emission
>vehicles ( they are low emission for their vehicle category and will
>pass the standard emission output tests for the passenger car

My 97 XLT 4.0 that the dealer just bought back had 2... Crawl underneath
and look. You have one right at the front of the exhaust pipe just after
the Y where the right and left sides combine, then a 2nd cat immediately
before the flange where the muffler bolts up.
My 97 EB V8 has 4 cats... one on each side right almost at the manifold and
a second on each side right before the Muffler flange.



>category as well ). Being "Environmentally Correct" means you
>have to make some sacrifices at times. If cleaning up the exhaust
>emissions means putting on 2 converters and lowering mileage and
>power output a little bit I guess that's what we'll have to take. Its nice
>to see that Ford is at least taking some initiative to try and clean up
>the emissions that are coming out of our vehicles. If the other auto


Fords emissions after the cats are still dirtier than GM... My LeSabre
would run HC of 0.1ppm and CO of 0.2% idle and 2500 RPM on the sniffer...
Even after 95000 miles... Both the V6 and the V8 explorers, with 40K and
33K miles respectively show their printouts to have HC of 40ppm on the V6
and 43ppm on the V8, CO is at 0.8% on both. It seems Ford is still on the
"Bandaid for a broken leg" kick as far as emissions... if they'd refine the
fuel delivery in their computers, they wouldn't need 2 cats per bank and
would be as clean as the GM vehicles I've owned. One problem they cover up
with extra fuel is pinging... They don't use a knock sensor on the 5.0 or
4.0 explorers (and a lot of their other vehicles). They just run the
motors on the rich side to use fuel to cool the charge to prevent
detonation... this also explains the low 150HP from the 4.0 OHV
motor... Lean it out a bit and let the computer take an active role in
detonation control and it could be 175-180 HP easily...
GM uses 3D timing maps... a high table and a low table. They monitor the
knock and retard timing to quell any sensed detonation, but they also
learn... you fill up with 87 octane and the computer monitors a specific
load value for detonation... if it senses detonation under the test
conditions at that load point a certain number of times, it switches to the
low table, and keeps running the test... If the test doesn't sense
detonation, it will slowly advance the whole table back towards the high
limit table until it senses detonation again, and interpolates it's own
table for the octane/conditions in use. If you run 93 octane and don't
have any other problems with the car, then the high table eventually (I
think it takes 10 minutes of driving to adapt) becomes the current table.
I've been playing with the GM computers for quite a few years, and they
have the most advanced programming of any of the automakers today. OBD_II
doesn't mean squat as far as fuel/timing control go... It's 99% a standard
so ALL vehicles can use a universal interface for diagnostics (Although
there are 3 "flavors"... GM uses 10.5Kbps VPW, Ford uses 41.6Kbps PWM and
Chrysler/imports use ISO-9141-2).
I'm not pro-any carmaker or against any carmakers... I just like what GM
has done and it's the most modern way... Of the Big 3 american carmakers,
Ford is the most primitive of the controls... Chrysler is a close 2nd.
GM's latest uses a seperate processor for timing and another for the fuel
and the rest of the controls. They have 1meg of EEPROM for data tables and
software code on EACH processor. Ford still uses the clunky 80C196 based
chip and only uses about 1/3 of the total space in the 1meg EEPROM they
have... The V8 actually uses 1/2 the amount of code as the 4.0
V6. Hopefully, Ford will get some good programmers in the near future and
there will be some major improvements in their engine control.

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:55:03 -0400
From: David Cooley
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 10:53 AM 8/12/1999 -0400, you wrote:

>I have a 86 Pontiac Bonneville (the last of the rear wheel drive Bonnies) that
>has
>the 4.3 V6 and 73k miles on it. From what I have heard, GM ran out of the
>smaller 3.? V6s
>and substituted the 4.3 half way through the production run for the 1986
>models. It has


Be curious as to the VIN code of your Bonne... According to pontiac, they
never used any V6 from 82 up but the 3.8 V6...
Reason being is the 4.3 V6 has a CHEVY boltpattern on the back of the block
and the Pontiac trans will not bolt up.

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:55:45 -0400
From: David Cooley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 10:27 AM 8/12/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Ray,
>
>For the past year, I have used synthetic Mobil 1 and Mobil oil filter in
>my '94
>Ranger 4.0 Splash Extend cab 4x4 - 55,000 miles. I too change oil every
>3-4000
>miles. Am very pleased so far.
>
>The truck recently developed a shudder/minor vibration at 15 mph - I think it
>might be the fan clutch (at least I'll start there). Any ideas? Thanks.

Check the U joints and driveshaft splined slip joints.
===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:59:17 -0400
From: David Cooley
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 10:40 AM 8/12/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>My 97 Explorer 4.0 auto, manufactured in Oct 96, has two converters. The
>pipes come down and back, then a converter each and back some more. Then
>they "y" together and come out in a single tail pipe.


It appears they have had multiple designs... The 4.0 V6 they bought back
was made Nov 96 (It was a 97 XLT 4 door) and the exhaust pipes Y'd into one
then had 2 converters... one after the other, then the Muffler.

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:51:38 -0400
From: "william.hickey"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

Interesting .......... The owners manual for this car originally came with a
envelope containing a single page
insert covering the 4.3 engine specs ........ the VIN is 2G2GN69Z5G2287532
Bill




owner-small-list ford-trucks.com on 08/12/99 12:12:43 AM
Please respond to small-list ford-trucks.com SMTP
To: small-list ford-trucks.com SMTP
cc:
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 10:53 AM 8/12/1999 -0400, you wrote:

>I have a 86 Pontiac Bonneville (the last of the rear wheel drive Bonnies) that
>has
>the 4.3 V6 and 73k miles on it. From what I have heard, GM ran out of the
>smaller 3.? V6s
>and substituted the 4.3 half way through the production run for the 1986
>models. It has


Be curious as to the VIN code of your Bonne... According to pontiac, they
never used any V6 from 82 up but the 3.8 V6...
Reason being is the 4.3 V6 has a CHEVY boltpattern on the back of the block
and the Pontiac trans will not bolt up.

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
===========================================================

== 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, 12 Aug 1999 18:48:46 -0400
From: "Jesse A. Edwards"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

. . . thanks - will do.

David Cooley wrote:

> At 10:27 AM 8/12/1999 -0400, you wrote:
> >Ray,
> >
> >For the past year, I have used synthetic Mobil 1 and Mobil oil filter in
> >my '94
> >Ranger 4.0 Splash Extend cab 4x4 - 55,000 miles. I too change oil every
> >3-4000
> >miles. Am very pleased so far.
> >
> >The truck recently developed a shudder/minor vibration at 15 mph - I think it
> >might be the fan clutch (at least I'll start there). Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Check the U joints and driveshaft splined slip joints.
> ===========================================================
> David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
> Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
> We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated!
> ===========================================================
>
> == 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, 12 Aug 1999 18:54:21 -0400
From: "Jesse A. Edwards"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

Hi Ray,

I did use conventional oil before switching to Mobile 1. Since the switch, my
truck starts easier, is smother throughout the power range and gets a little
better gas mileage. Although the synthetics claim they do not need to be
changed as often as conventional - I still change about 3-4,000 miles - guess
old habits are hard to break.

Keep in touch -

Jerry

Ray Scheidnes wrote:

> Thanks, Jesse.
> I have heard that Mobil 1 is good stuff. Did you ever use conventional oil
> before the Mobil 1, and if you did, was there any difference that you
> noticed? Maybe it ran smoother or something? I've also heard that
> synthetics don't break down anywhere near as fast as conventionals do, so
> you supposedly don't need to change synthetics as often...
> I don't know of any shudders/vibrations in my truck. But, sounds like the
> fan clutch is a good place to start looking. I've been lucky, I guess - and
> I've taken very good care of mine. I recently developed an annoying squeak
> that I could only narrow down to the front driver's side corner. I searched
> and searched, checked everything from body mounts to the battery... Finally
> narrowed it down to the rubber pad that contacts the underside of the hood
> when it's closed. Needed some cleaning and some silicone gel lube and it
> the squeek totally disappeared... amazing.
> Anyway, thanks for the input on the oil.
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jesse A. Edwards[SMTP:phubby bellsouth.net]
> > Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 7:27 AM
> > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> >
> > Ray,
> >
> > For the past year, I have used synthetic Mobil 1 and Mobil oil filter in
> > my '94
> > Ranger 4.0 Splash Extend cab 4x4 - 55,000 miles. I too change oil every
> > 3-4000
> > miles. Am very pleased so far.
> >
> > The truck recently developed a shudder/minor vibration at 15 mph - I think
> > it
> > might be the fan clutch (at least I'll start there). Any ideas? Thanks.
> >
> > Jerry Edwards
> > Asheville, NC
> > Phubby bellsouth.net
> >
> > Ray Scheidnes wrote:
> >
> > > My 94 Ranger 4.0 is "quiet" as far as I can tell - except for the 2.5"
> > > exhaust, Bullet muffler, JBA headers and KKM air induction kit. But, I
> > like
> > > the sound that it makes with all of the modifications. The motor has
> > 66k
> > > miles on it and runs smooth. I feed it good gas (usually 89 or 87
> > ocatane)
> > > and change the oil every 3 - 4000 miles. Doesn't sound like a diesel as
> > far
> > > as I can tell. Thinking about running one of the sythetic oils, like
> > Syntex
> > > or something. Anybody have any experience with pure synthetic oil in
> > the
> > > 4.0? Is it worth the extra money?
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Herring, Bobby[SMTP:BHerring txfb-ins.com]
> > > > Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:39 AM
> > > > To: 'small-list ford-trucks.com'
> > > > Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> > > >
> > > > My 93 Ranger 4.0 never makes any of these sounds. I never have
> > problems
> > > > with
> > > > clatter or any engine noise. My wife's 97 4.0 Explorer does make a lot
> > of
> > > > noise when you crank it that sounds kind of like a deisel. It only
> > does it
> > > > when it is first cranked like all the lifters bled down or something.
> > Only
> > > > 60k miles. Everything else is great.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Anthony Rifici [mailto:rifici.1 osu.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:31 PM
> > > > > To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre
> > > > >
> > > > > >Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > >experience ......... a very noisy engine including the
> > intermittent
> > > > racket
> > > > > >coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for
> > sure
> > > > .......
> > > > > >but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the
> > 4.0
> > > > engine
> > > > > >.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all
> > really
> > > > this
> > > > noisy
> > > > > >?
> > > > > >I had a 90 4 litre V6, (both automatics) which was the best
> > vehicle
> > > > > >I ever owned. It had lots of pep and the only engine noise was the
> > > > intake
> > > > > >which sounded good.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 94 4.0L is the same way and I also thought that something was
> > > > wrong
> > > > > until I spent some time listening to other people's Rangers and
> > > > Explorers
> > > > in
> > > > > parking lots and at stop lights. Anybody know what changed in the
> > 4.0L
> > > > > between 90 and 94? I know that 1993 was a body change and 1995
> > marked
> > > > the
> > > > > onset of OBDII and a few changes, but I didn't think much was
> > different
> > > > in
> > > > > the drivetrain between 90 and 94.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tony
> > > > > 94 Ranger, 4.0L, 5-Speed
> > > > >
> > > > > == 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
> > > >
> > > == 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
> >
> == 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, 12 Aug 1999 19:24:11 -0400
From: "Anthony Rifici"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

>At 10:40 AM 8/12/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>>My 97 Explorer 4.0 auto, manufactured in Oct 96, has two converters. The
>>pipes come down and back, then a converter each and back some more. Then
>>they "y" together and come out in a single tail pipe.
>
>It appears they have had multiple designs... The 4.0 V6 they bought back
>was made Nov 96 (It was a 97 XLT 4 door) and the exhaust pipes Y'd into one
>then had 2 converters... one after the other, then the Muffler.
>


My '94 4.0L Supercab Ranger (60K) uses the second configuration (Y'd
into 1 and then 2 cats inline). Back when I was concerned about the
diesel/valve clatter sounds, I noticed that the sound is most noticeable
(loudest) in the area of the inline cats. Not at the engine, manifolds,
muffler, or exhaust exit. I have checked several times and found no leaks.
I am wondering if those of us who hear these noises have this configuration
and those who don't, have the other exhaust configuration. Perhaps these
cats have dynamics such that the "normal" internal engine noises or
vibrations (like the valves opening and closing) are magnified or resonant
in the cats and the other setup does a better job of damping these
vibrations.
Also, the truck is extremely quiet inside and runs smooth. It is
outside that this is noticeable, (especially by the cats). I am guessing
that the others are quiet inside also.
Lets keep up the discussion, I'd like to see if we can solve this.

Tony
94 Ranger Supercab, 4.0L, 5-Speed



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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:24:13 -0400
From: "David A. Cooley"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 07:24 PM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:

> My '94 4.0L Supercab Ranger (60K) uses the second configuration (Y'd
>into 1 and then 2 cats inline). Back when I was concerned about the
>diesel/valve clatter sounds, I noticed that the sound is most noticeable
>(loudest) in the area of the inline cats. Not at the engine, manifolds,
>muffler, or exhaust exit. I have checked several times and found no leaks.
>I am wondering if those of us who hear these noises have this configuration
>and those who don't, have the other exhaust configuration. Perhaps these
>cats have dynamics such that the "normal" internal engine noises or
>vibrations (like the valves opening and closing) are magnified or resonant
>in the cats and the other setup does a better job of damping these
>vibrations.


There is a TSB out for a rattle caused by the catalytic converters/muffler...

===========================================================
David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT bellsouth.net
Packet: N5XMT KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA T.A.P.R. Member #7068
Sponges grow in the ocean... Wonder how deep it would be if they didn't?!
===========================================================
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:59:35 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II

Tom Kirkbride wrote:

> Hey all:
>
> I just bought a new Ford. This time an 84 Bronco II V6 4X4. It has a 3
> speed auto with 133,000 miles. Its in exceptional shape for an 84. I
> got a great deal at $750.

Thats a good buy!

> I have a few quick questions now:

> 2. Why does my engine almost cut out when I press on the brake in park or
> neutral?

Could be a vacuum leak in your power booster.

Bob


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:58:04 -0500
From: "Dennis Thompson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Kirkbride
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 2:34 AM
Subject: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II


> Hey all:
>
> I just bought a new Ford. This time an 84 Bronco II V6 4X4. It has a 3
> speed auto with 133,000 miles. Its in exceptional shape for an 84. I

> got a great deal at $750.
Good deal, got mine for $600

> I have a few quick questions now: 1. Does
> anyone know of any easy way to change the spark plugs?

With a socket... just kidding, the only ones that are tough are the ones
near the firewall.

> 2. Why does my
> engine almost cut out when I press on the brake in park or neutral?

Vaccum leak?

> 3.
> How easy would it be to swap rear seats out of an 85 B2

Should work, I got some from a junkyard - think it was a '85

SPECTRE

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:16:35 -0500
From: Bill Adams
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Replacing the Radius Arm Bushing

*I'd* pay it for someone else to do it and I'm a technician!

> It is not a fun job on these vehicles.

No it isn't.

> The explorer is very similar


> >I do all my work myself but this was one aggrevation I did not
> >need. Find someone to do the job for you. Preferably one that you can
> >watch like a small town shop where you know the mechanics.


> >been toying with the idea of doing them myself b/c Meineke wanted around
> >$200 for the job. I remember reading someone had them done at Goodyear
for
> >around $70. Anyone else have any experience?? Please help.

I second those emotions! I did change the Passenger side Radius arm
bushing on my 92 Explorer 2WD. It was about 6 hours of frustrating work.
You have to completely pull the 'axle' out to get the radius arm to move
far enough forward to get the new bushing on. I would not tackle it
again if I could afford to pay someone else to do it.
After I was through I built a metal heat shield which I bolted between
the bushing and the cat. Hope that will delay the day when this has to
be done again.

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:33:52 -0400
From: "Anthony Rifici"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

>There is a TSB out for a rattle caused by the catalytic
converters/muffler...
>


I was speaking specifically of the "diesel" like sound that other 4.0L
owners have been posting about, which I noticed to be the loudest (and most
noticeable) at the catalytic converters. Unless I've missed something I
think that I already took care of the rattle described in that TSB. Ford
put large stainless steel hose clamps over both cats, under warrantee, which
stopped the rattle caused by loose heat shields. Was that TSB for something
other than this?

Tony
'94 Ranger Supercab, 4.0L, 5-Speed.

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:21:57 -0500
From: Bill Adams
Subject: FTE Small - 4.0 Explorer dies on acceleration

My 92 4.0 Explorer dies during acceleration occasionally.
It sometimes dies happens when I hit the gas at a stop light.
It occasionally has a momentary loss of power during acceleration.
Hot or cold doesn't seem to matter. (Of course cold is something we
haven't seen in Dallas for a while.)

Any Ideas?--

Bill Adams

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

You might be a Star Wars Geek if:
You have ever gotten naked, put on a glow in the dark condom, and
walked around the house humming like a light saber.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:45:14 -0400
From: "Mark Salvetti"
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostar Transmission Rebuild

Hi everyone. I just bounced on over here from the full-size list to ask a
question for a friend. He has a 1992 Aerostar that he tows with, and his
transmission is just about gone.

He's looking for a shop in the Oak Ridge/Knoxville/Chattanooga area that can
rebuild his transmission and possibly improve it from its stock
configuration. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Mark Salvetti
1986 F-150

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:50:02 CDT
From: "Bad Brian"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 84 Bronco II

All the seats in the bronco II's interchange. They are VERY easy and all
fit. I have an 87 and put 89's in it. Did the same with all the panels ,
power windows, locks, and door panels, etc. Everything just about except
dash and front end are about the same.

> > Hey all:
> >
> > I just bought a new Ford. This time an 84 Bronco II V6 4X4. It has a 3
> > speed auto with 133,000 miles. Its in exceptional shape for an 84. I
>
> > got a great deal at $750.
>Good deal, got mine for $600
>
> > I have a few quick questions now: 1. Does
> > anyone know of any easy way to change the spark plugs?
>
>With a socket... just kidding, the only ones that are tough are the ones
>near the firewall.
>
> > 2. Why does my
> > engine almost cut out when I press on the brake in park or neutral?
>
>Vaccum leak?
>
> > 3.
> > How easy would it be to swap rear seats out of an 85 B2
>
>Should work, I got some from a junkyard - think it was a '85
>
>SPECTRE
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


Bad Brian
Southeastern Electronics
kf4obc
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://southeastern.webjump.com


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.msn.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:52:35 -0500
From: Jordan Dean
Subject: Re: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 04:03 PM 8/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Ditto for me ........ I have a 99 with the 4.0 engine and have had the same
>experience ......... a very noisy engine including the intermittent racket
>coming from the crankcase ...... a very diesel sounding engine for sure
.......
>but so far everyone has said that these sounds are normal for the 4.0 engine
>.......... How about you other 4.0 owners ...... are they all really this
noisy
>?

Um, I have a '93 4.0 explorer (same engine as y'alls basically) and, before
modifications, it was VERY quiet, after the borla exhaust, it's has some
noise, but it's a nice low grumble, NOTHING like a diesel.
-Jordan

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:02:24 -0500
From: Jordan Dean
Subject: RE: FTE Small - 99 Ranger 4l litre

At 10:40 AM 8/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>My 97 Explorer 4.0 auto, manufactured in Oct 96, has two converters. The
>pipes come down and back, then a converter each and back some more. Then
>they "y" together and come out in a single tail pipe.
>Bobby
Yeah, I dunno who said they only have one, but they are just wrong, I know
all of the 4.0's come stock with 2 cats, mine is a 93 and it does. all the
ones I've ever looked at do to.

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:32:15 -0700
From: don neomagic.com (Donald Paauw)
Subject: FTE Small - oil sender location

In the oil flow, is the pressure sender before or after the oil filter?
Seems like it should be after.
Also, is this universal? If not, I'm interested in the 2.9L and 5.0L
engines.

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


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.