From: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com (small-list-digest)
To: small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list-digest V3 #281
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 Thursday, October 28 1999 Volume 03 : Number 281



=======================================================================
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 - Electric transfer case
RE: FTE Small - Rear ABS
RE: FTE Small - Front end alignment
FTE Small - Aerostar Spark Plugs (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)
FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks
RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
Re: FTE Small - Aerostar Spark Plugs (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)
Re: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks
RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
Re: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks
FTE Small - ADMIN: New policy
Re: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
FTE Small - Re: Aerostar (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)]
FTE Small - ranger lift
FTE Small - Aerostar comments
FTE Small - Taking intolerance to the next level
Re: [FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks]
FTE Small - Aerostars
FTE Small - Re: AWD Vs. Part time
Re: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
RE: FTE Small - Taking intolerance to the next level

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:03:45 -0600
From: "Robert M. Hansen"
Subject: FTE Small - Electric transfer case

It took me awhile but I found the info at:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.glue.umd.edu/~singletn/web/pages/tcase.html

Several approaches to the problem. I used the turn the motor until the
indicators line up method. It will make more sense when you have read them
and tear it apart.

Good luck, 73

Robert M. Hansen Master Tech
hansen grizzly.uwyo.edu Department of Atmospheric Science
rhansen uwyo.edu University of Wyoming
307-766-3273 ph Box 3038 University of Wyoming
307-766-2635 fax Laramie, Wy 82071

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:07:21 -0500
From: "Campbell, Carl "
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Rear ABS

Hi Cliff:
Welcome to the list. I had a similar problem on my 88 BIIXLT back in July
after replacing the master cylinder and reservoir. My "REAR ANTILOCK " and
"BRAKE" warning lamps came on and stayed on. It turned out to be a
defective fluid level sensor. I got a replacement assembly under warranty
and the problem disappeared. Check your brake fluid level. It sounds like
it may be on the ragged edge of being too low. It could be that
acceleration, cornering, ect. could be setting an alarm.
Carl

> ----------
> From: Cliff Cameron[SMTP:cliff cepg.com]
> Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 1999 11:59 AM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Small - Rear ABS
>
> I just joined, so I apologize if this has already been covered. Several
> times recently the orange rear ABS warning
> light and teh red brake warning light have come on on my 89 Bronco II.
> This happened when driving, NOT applying the
> brakes. Braking seems unaffected and after stopping and restarting the
> engine, everying goes back to normal. Anyone got
> any ideas?
>
> Cliff
>
> == 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: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:21:40 -0400
From: Ben McClung
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Front end alignment

Hi Ken,

I have '92 Explorer 4wd.
It has pulled to the right since about 30k miles.
No noticable tire wear.

Please let me know if this fixes your problem


Thank you,
Ben
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth St.John [SMTP:ken integrityonline3.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 7:49 PM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Front end alignment

Here's a good one...
I went for an alignment today for my '91 Explorer (as it's pulling to the
right). I have a 3 inch lift on it but the readout showed a good alignment.
Big O tire checked for a good 4 wheel alignment (even though the rear can't
be aligned) and everything looks good. Also, everything in the front is
tight -- go figure??? They stated that they would change the camber on my
right front wheel and even though the computer shows an unequal camber
alignment, the alignment would be good. I'll know this week as they had to
order the correct wedge for this.
Also, the caster shows the following:

+4.4 on the left wheel and +3.9 on the right.

This should make the truck want to pull to the left but it doesn't??? How
can I correct this? I have polyurethane bushings on the radius arm bracket
(along with the drop).

Can anyone offer some suggestions on any of the above???

Thanks
Ken

== 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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:14:18 -0700
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostar Spark Plugs (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)

Ahem:

Boy, I sure got a wild thread going here about Aerostar handling on the
Autobahn at 100 mph.

But, come on guys, nobody picked up the gauntlet about the real topic:
spark plugs.

I mean, I really want to know the good and bad of different brands and
models. I'm especially curious about how the standard Nippon Denso
U-Groove plugs work in Ford engines, since my experience with them
elsewhere was so good. Indeed, before the word "Platinum" became an
expensive mantra, Toyota was installing and specifying these plugs for
very long service in their cars. (Oh, yeah, I know, Toyota owns ND, but
the plugs seem really good anyway).

Let's hear it about spark plugs!

Richard


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:09:24 -0700
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks

Christopher J Abele wrote --------------------------------------

I could have sworn that this was a list for trucks, not minivans. Though
I completely understand a few questions regarding the Aerostar since
this
is also a Ford list, things have indeed gotten a bit out of hand!

Me:
Oh? I could've sworn that my Aerostar was made by Ford. Was it really
made by someone else? Daihatsu, perhaps? Skoda?

Christopher:

Let's face it: Aerostars are ugly minivans useful for toting the kids to
school and not much more. Sure, you could take out the back seats and
have enough room to haul cargo, but if that's your main purpose in
owning
a Aerostar why didn't you just plan ahead and purchase a truck??

Me:

Christopher, I hate to burst your bubble, but both Ford and my state DMV
classify the Aerostar as a truck. In fact, you may have noticed the
commercial van versions of it: just look around you. These commercial
renditions are mechanically identical to the consumer versions. The
Windstar and Chrysler minivans, on the other hand, are classified as
cars. Perhaps someone else can clue us in on exactly what the
distinctions really mean, aside from emissions requirements.

The Aerostar is truly useful in cities with scant driveway clearance and
almost impossible parking (such as San Francisco). Ford managed to cram
the most hauling space into the shortest body. In fact, my Aerostar is
actually shorter than my old Toyota Corona station wagon.
Unfortunately, Ford accomplished this feat by jamming the engine in so
tightly that you damn near can't repair it at all. And my Toyota car
was "built like a truck," whereas, my Ford truck is built like some
cheap flimsy piece of s**t from Toys R Us.

What they have in common with cars is their insane (contemptuous?)
engineering with such severe obstructions that the cost of repairs will
ensure that you'll throw it out before its time. And other engineering
stupidities and materials stinginess that I'm inreasingly associating
with Ford. The transmission is a car tranny, legendary for falling
apart.

I agree with you on one point: the Aerostar is sure ugly! A loser here,
too. It has the ugliness of a Citroen 2CV without any of the endearing
Gallic charm. And the 2CV is a damn sight more tough and reliable:
there's no contest whatsoever. The French use old 2CVs as tractors:
just try this with an Aerostar.

The Areostar is not a cheap junky car: unfortunately it is a cheap junky
overpriced truck. Or perhaps we have just become accepting of being
sold cheap junky automotive merchandise.

Richard


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:41:51 -0400
From: "william.hickey"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger

I have noticed the ventilation system does not appear to work correctly on my
1999 Ranger 4x4 SC with 4.0
L engine. When I switch the fresh air vent to either the floor or dash level I
always get air that is 6 to 8 degrees higher
than the outside air. (I checked it with a thermometer). Took it to the
dealer and he tells me that it is normal for these
trucks .... but I don't remember my old 93 Ranger doing it. Anyone else
notice this on their trucks ?
Thanks
Bill
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:23:27 -0400
From: David Cooley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Aerostar Spark Plugs (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)

At 12:14 PM 10/27/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Ahem:
>
>Boy, I sure got a wild thread going here about Aerostar handling on the
>Autobahn at 100 mph.
>
>But, come on guys, nobody picked up the gauntlet about the real topic:
>spark plugs.
>
>I mean, I really want to know the good and bad of different brands and
>models. I'm especially curious about how the standard Nippon Denso
>U-Groove plugs work in Ford engines, since my experience with them
>elsewhere was so good. Indeed, before the word "Platinum" became an
>expensive mantra, Toyota was installing and specifying these plugs for
>very long service in their cars. (Oh, yeah, I know, Toyota owns ND, but
>the plugs seem really good anyway).


With the many cars I have had over the years, I've found that each one has
it's own preference of which plug works best/lasts longest. Splitfires
were bad in ALL my vehicles, and the TorqueMasters I put in my Buick GN
were worse... My buicks (85 Grand National Turbo'd V6 and 95 LeSabre)
loved Autolite plugs... My 71 Honda 600 Sedan, 71 Ford Pinto 1.6L and 69
Mustang 302 all loved the ND U grooves best. My 97 Explorer 5.0 V8 runs
like crap on anything but the Motorcraft double platinum.


===========================================================
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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:29:35 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks

rgstein pacbell.net wrote:
>
> Christopher J Abele wrote --------------------------------------
>
> I could have sworn that this was a list for trucks, not minivans.

Generally you are correct, but from question 12 on the "Ford Truck
Enthusiasts Frequently Asked Questions " I give you;

> 2. I have a mini-van and I've been told it has a truck chassis, is this an acceptable vehicle for the lists?
>
> Yes, but only Aerostars on the small truck list since it shares the >same drive-train/chassis as the Ranger/Bronco II/Explorer. We don't >cover Windstars because they are built on a Taurus chassis.


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:10:10 -0400
From: "Theodore D. Mills"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger

I have the same problem on my 85 Ranger.

The heater core has water circulating through it all the time, si the only
thing keeping the heat out is the temp adjusting damper.

My truck has no A/C so there is probably no insulation to speak of in
there.....



At 15:41 10/27/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>I have noticed the ventilation system does not appear to work correctly on my
>1999 Ranger 4x4 SC with 4.0
>L engine. When I switch the fresh air vent to either the floor or dash
level I
>always get air that is 6 to 8 degrees higher
>than the outside air. (I checked it with a thermometer). Took it to the
>dealer and he tells me that it is normal for these
>trucks .... but I don't remember my old 93 Ranger doing it. Anyone else
>notice this on their trucks ?
>Thanks
>Bill
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
Ted
84 Mustang GT (in pieces)
85 Ranger 2WD 2.8L
91 F250 4X4X460
94 Taurus LX wagon 3.8L


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:37:01 -0700
From: Ray Scheidnes
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger

I noticed this effect when I get back into my 94 Ranger 4x4 (4.0) after
driving a bit. The hot engine seems to warm the air passages enough so that
by the time I get back to going somewhere again, I get much warmer air
coming out of my dash vents than what's really outside. I just switch over
to A/C or wait a while, until the temp becomes more comfortable. I don't
think that there's a mechanical problem, per se. More like a design flaw.

> ----------
> From: william.hickey[SMTP:william.hickey bankofamerica.com]
> Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 12:41 PM
> To: small-list
> Subject: RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
>
> I have noticed the ventilation system does not appear to work correctly on
> my
> 1999 Ranger 4x4 SC with 4.0
> L engine. When I switch the fresh air vent to either the floor or dash
> level I
> always get air that is 6 to 8 degrees higher
> than the outside air. (I checked it with a thermometer). Took it to the
> dealer and he tells me that it is normal for these
> trucks .... but I don't remember my old 93 Ranger doing it. Anyone else
> notice this on their trucks ?
> Thanks
> Bill
> == 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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:43:55 -0700
From: "Hans Luckoff"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks

Richard, Why do I get the impression that you would look good in a Citroen,
Gaelic charm, you have got to be kidding. Hans
- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Ford Truck List
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks


> Christopher J Abele wrote --------------------------------------
>
> I could have sworn that this was a list for trucks, not minivans. Though
> I completely understand a few questions regarding the Aerostar since
> this
> is also a Ford list, things have indeed gotten a bit out of hand!
>
> Me:
> Oh? I could've sworn that my Aerostar was made by Ford. Was it really
> made by someone else? Daihatsu, perhaps? Skoda?
>
> Christopher:
>
> Let's face it: Aerostars are ugly minivans useful for toting the kids to
> school and not much more. Sure, you could take out the back seats and
> have enough room to haul cargo, but if that's your main purpose in
> owning
> a Aerostar why didn't you just plan ahead and purchase a truck??
>
> Me:
>
> Christopher, I hate to burst your bubble, but both Ford and my state DMV
> classify the Aerostar as a truck. In fact, you may have noticed the
> commercial van versions of it: just look around you. These commercial
> renditions are mechanically identical to the consumer versions. The
> Windstar and Chrysler minivans, on the other hand, are classified as
> cars. Perhaps someone else can clue us in on exactly what the
> distinctions really mean, aside from emissions requirements.
>
> The Aerostar is truly useful in cities with scant driveway clearance and
> almost impossible parking (such as San Francisco). Ford managed to cram
> the most hauling space into the shortest body. In fact, my Aerostar is
> actually shorter than my old Toyota Corona station wagon.
> Unfortunately, Ford accomplished this feat by jamming the engine in so
> tightly that you damn near can't repair it at all. And my Toyota car
> was "built like a truck," whereas, my Ford truck is built like some
> cheap flimsy piece of s**t from Toys R Us.
>
> What they have in common with cars is their insane (contemptuous?)
> engineering with such severe obstructions that the cost of repairs will
> ensure that you'll throw it out before its time. And other engineering
> stupidities and materials stinginess that I'm inreasingly associating
> with Ford. The transmission is a car tranny, legendary for falling
> apart.
>
> I agree with you on one point: the Aerostar is sure ugly! A loser here,
> too. It has the ugliness of a Citroen 2CV without any of the endearing
> Gallic charm. And the 2CV is a damn sight more tough and reliable:
> there's no contest whatsoever. The French use old 2CVs as tractors:
> just try this with an Aerostar.
>
> The Areostar is not a cheap junky car: unfortunately it is a cheap junky
> overpriced truck. Or perhaps we have just become accepting of being
> sold cheap junky automotive merchandise.
>
> Richard
>
>
> == 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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:36:16 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Small - ADMIN: New policy

ADMIN: New policy ---- Please read!

As many of our old-timers may remember, we started a
policy of filtering out all special character formatting
and HTML in emails posted to the list.

This policy was put in place over 2 years ago because
many people where using email software that could not
handle such items correctly (mostly Unix email software).
This made life easier for those users but there was and
continues to be a tremendous burden on the list admins
and many users who post for first time.

There are many reasons for these burdens:

1. Many first time posters have font and/or color
settings in their email software. Their first post
gets rejected by our list server and they receive
an email detailing how to change the settings in
their software.

2. For each of the instances of item 1, either Keith
Srb (admin of three of the lists) or I have to
****manually**** send the instruction email.

3. Some users are unable to correct their settings,
either because they are unfamiliar with their
email software or our standard mailing does not
software their particular software (there is no
way we can possibly cover all email software
titles).

This is not something that occurs occasionally, but
happens many times each day. FTE has grown well
beyond the size it was when the policy was started.
At that time, we had less than 1,000 subscribers.
We now have over 5,000 and the lists continue to
grow.

FTE has always been something that I care deeply
about and I've continued to offer more free services
to our users as funds have allowed. While our funding
has increased and we're no longer losing thousands
of $$$ per year on this hobby gone amuck, my available
time has remained constant.

As some of my friends that I've made through the
lists know, FTE has been cutting into my family life
for a LONG time. 90% of this time is administering
the lists.

The demographics of email users has changed considerably
since we first instated the policy. Fewer than 1% of
our visitors are using Unix software as opposed to
15% 2 years ago. Most new releases of Unix email
software now supports HTML and character formatting.

The policy is obsolete. Beginning sometime next week
we will be removing the filters.

Rest assured that users who abuse this by using loud
fonts, huge characters, etc, will be warned to tone
it down.

Additionally, since the current filters block out
any possibility of viruses getting posted to the
lists, when the filters are removed, new filters
will be put in place which will block out file
attachments such as:

JPGs, GIFs, DOCs, COM, DLL, EXE, etc...

This will prevent email viruses getting posted.

Regards,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:52:42 -0700
From: "Michael D. Sheridan"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger

william.hickey wrote:
>
> I have noticed the ventilation system does not appear to work correctly on my
> 1999 Ranger 4x4 SC with 4.0
> L engine. When I switch the fresh air vent to either the floor or dash level I
> always get air that is 6 to 8 degrees higher
> than the outside air. (I checked it with a thermometer). Took it to the
> dealer and he tells me that it is normal for these
> trucks .... but I don't remember my old 93 Ranger doing it. Anyone else
> notice this on their trucks ?
> Thanks
> Bill

Hi Bill:

I have been reading this list for quite awhile and
what you are talking about has come up I think or
something related. I have a 99 B2500 Mazda which has the
same system as your Ranger and mine seems to be about the
same way give or take a degree or two but where I
live it's either on full heat or the air conditioning
is on so it's hard for me to tell as I don't use the
straight outside air that much.

The most serious problem I have noted about our systems
is the nasty old mold smell that happens in winter after
leaving the truck outside in the rain and then taking
off. Some days it will be so overwhelming that I will have to
roll all the windows down and put the hood up on my parka
and drive for awhile before I can stand to roll the windows
up again.

I think this subject was gone over last winter by other
Ford/Mazda truck owners and it's an ongoing problem as
far as I could determine by the various posts so I have
avoided taking my Mazda to the dealer and complaining as
I would suspect he would merely waste my time and perhaps
even cause damage to something else while attempting some
sort of a patch up job on my truck.

My GUESS is that water forms something like pollywog pond
in there and after a short time you start smelling the
smell from whatever grows in one, you know. People that
park their trucks in a covered area or garage perhaps
are not as badly affected as others. Also the
condition doesn't seem to take place in the hot summer time
when there is no rain.

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:10:00 -0600
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger

This "heating" is caused due to the air running through the heater core
itself. Ford did this design because it was cheaper to do it this way
rather then run lots of separate ducts. I know that this happens with all
the fords I have owned/used.

Ryan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-small-list ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-small-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Michael D.
> Sheridan
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 5:53 PM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - Air vent on a 99 Ranger
>
>
> william.hickey wrote:
> >
> > I have noticed the ventilation system does not appear to work
> correctly on my
> > 1999 Ranger 4x4 SC with 4.0
> > L engine. When I switch the fresh air vent to either the floor
> or dash level I
> > always get air that is 6 to 8 degrees higher
> > than the outside air. (I checked it with a thermometer). Took
> it to the
> > dealer and he tells me that it is normal for these
> > trucks .... but I don't remember my old 93 Ranger doing it.
> Anyone else
> > notice this on their trucks ?
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> Hi Bill:
>
> I have been reading this list for quite awhile and
> what you are talking about has come up I think or
> something related. I have a 99 B2500 Mazda which has the
> same system as your Ranger and mine seems to be about the
> same way give or take a degree or two but where I
> live it's either on full heat or the air conditioning
> is on so it's hard for me to tell as I don't use the
> straight outside air that much.
>
> The most serious problem I have noted about our systems
> is the nasty old mold smell that happens in winter after
> leaving the truck outside in the rain and then taking
> off. Some days it will be so overwhelming that I will have to
> roll all the windows down and put the hood up on my parka
> and drive for awhile before I can stand to roll the windows
> up again.
>
> I think this subject was gone over last winter by other
> Ford/Mazda truck owners and it's an ongoing problem as
> far as I could determine by the various posts so I have
> avoided taking my Mazda to the dealer and complaining as
> I would suspect he would merely waste my time and perhaps
> even cause damage to something else while attempting some
> sort of a patch up job on my truck.
>
> My GUESS is that water forms something like pollywog pond
> in there and after a short time you start smelling the
> smell from whatever grows in one, you know. People that
> park their trucks in a covered area or garage perhaps
> are not as badly affected as others. Also the
> condition doesn't seem to take place in the hot summer time
> when there is no rain.
>
> Michael
> == 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: 27 Oct 99 20:52:39 EDT
From: Tim Turner
Subject: FTE Small - Re: Aerostar (Really: yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs!)]

rgstein pacbell.net wrote:
> Ahem:
> =


"Yoo-hoo: Spark Plugs" is darn appropriate for an Aerostar! Those hummer=
s are
buried.. ;-) I dont know how many times I've pulled out 4/5 fresh plugs=
and
2/1 still original during tune-ups.

FWIW here's my procedure:

Cyl's 1&2 lift/jack body up and use socket with one swivel and 24" extens=
ion
through the passenger side wheel opening. (wheel removal optional if equi=
pped
with long and skinny arm)

Cyl. 3 (best done cold) attack from underneath with short socket with hex=
on
the back and proper sized wrench

Cyl's 4,5&6 get two swivels on the socket and a 36" extension approaching=
from
the area of the battery. (Watch the + terminal!)

Without 2 swivels use the procedure for #3 on #6... Also be prepared for=
the
plug wires to be VERY stubborn about removal and try not to break them. =
(A
dab of silicone dielectric grease inside the boot will help for future
removal.)

> =

> But, come on guys, nobody picked up the gauntlet about the real topic:
> spark plugs.

Oh crap... You've done it now! I think it was the 'Perf' list that had t=
his
discussion last. :-) Let's ask what the best oil is too.

> =

> I mean, I really want to know the good and bad of different brands and
> models. =


Subjective opinions: (in no order)

Good: NGK, ND, AC, Motorcraft, Bosch super (NOT platinum), Autolite

Not so good: Mighty, Prestolite (weak side electrode), Bosch Platinum (an=

occasional insulator failure that blocks the gap)

Dont bother: Splitfire (hype), Champion (resistor is needlessly complex)

More on the story/rating system further down.
=

> I'm especially curious about how the standard Nippon Denso
> U-Groove plugs work in Ford engines, since my experience with them
> elsewhere was so good. =


I haven't seen any problem and as I recall 'Accel' plugs are indeed rebox=
ed
NDs (or were; may have changed in the last few years). I know people tha=
t
swear that certain cars/engines will only run properly on brand X but in =
14
years of tuning I've only seen two cases where removing NEW brand Y plugs=
and
installing the OE plugs helped anything. (Other than rotary engines; use
NGK/ND 4 electrode plugs only!) Plugs are cheap.. experiment! ;-)

> =

> Let's hear it about spark plugs!

Rating requirements and expanded comments:

Good: I've removed LOTS of this brand with 100K miles+ and the vehicle ra=
n
acceptably and rarely seen a bad one on the 'scope.

Not so good: Seen more than typical that were bad

Todays ignition system can spark a gap of .100" with no problem and I
routinely see plugs with the center electrode burned down to (or below!) =
the
insulator nose. Most often it's AC that I see like that and that's why I=
have
AC in the B-II, BUT... recently I had a Ford van towed in for a no-start
(Straight 6) and the coil had failed at 200+K miles. After starting it I=

heard a 'snapping' noise and discovered the plugs were loose enough to
actually hear the arcing (!!! A 1st for me..) started to tighten them an=
d
noticed they were Motorcraft. Hmm... lets pull one out. This particular=

engine used the 'super extended' center electrode plugs and the gap was l=
arger
than my guage, needed a caliper to measure it! As I recall the gap varie=
d
from .154-.180" amongst the set. I'll proudly stand behind Motorcraft pl=
ugs
now! :-)

Splitfires..unless you use a MSD setup there's ONE spark happening per po=
wer
stroke and once it jumps the gap it's not going to stop and go to the oth=
er
electrode. (About 10KV required to start the spark, but more like 3KV to=
keep
it going). Why the HP increases after installation you ask? Easy enough=
=2E.
take a worn set of plugs out of something then install ANY brand and see =
what
happens. Now before I bash them completely let me add one nice thing; sh=
arp
edges are desirable for promoting the best spark and with two electrodes =
this
doubles your chances. (Of course the aforementioned 'U-groove' plug
effectively does the same without the hoopla and cheaper.)

Champions.. most plug manufacturers use a carbon rod in the body for the
'resistor' running between the top cap and the copper electrode but Champ=
ion
adds a small spring and uses a short carbon section instead. More connec=
tions
equal more potential failures. This is the #1 brand I see fail; the bad =
part
about it is that on a 'scope it looks exactly like a bad plug wire. (Won=
der
how many needless sets of wires have been sold over the years by lazy
mechanics that didn't isolate the bad component(s)? I know it happened t=
o me
a few times when I was a newbie and hadn't learned to double check what y=
ou
see.)

> =

> Richard

Well Richard once again we may have opened the flood gates on an already =
busy
list.

Tim

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webm=
ail.netscape.com.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:54:52 -0500
From: "Randy Collins"
Subject: FTE Small - ranger lift

Well, I finally put the body lift on my 98 Ranger. Looks good so far. I
had to undercoat the rear wheel wells and frame to clean it up a bit,
working on underneath of front now. I am contemplating a light bar and or
skid plate for the front.

Only drawback is I lost my hooks in the front because of the bumper relo. I
am going to see if I can fabricate my front hooks somehow to put them back
on. Maybe some Jeep-type hooks? Suggestions?

The rear bumper is proving to be a bit of a challenge. My dad and I are
fabricating some new mounts now.

I am having a custom exhaust bent almost as we speak. It will exit out the
passenger side and possibly angle up or flare out flat, have not decided
yet.

Next on the list is an electric fan, hitch painted grey to match bumper, and
tonneau cover. Spring time will bring more adequately sized tires, at which
time I will raise the front via the torsion bars to eliminate the rake. Dad
suggested wheels, but not sure yet. Any tire size suggestion? I have the
16" tri spoke factory wheels. If I get new wheels, will go with 15"x10"
rims with probably 33" rubber.

ran


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:22:40 -0700
From: "meb8100"
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostar comments

Regarding what "Hans" wrote about the Aerostar:

"Can we quit talking about Aerostars now, it's just a little mini-van that's
over weight and under powered and I wouldn't be caught dead driving one."

I would like to inform you of some interesting specifications. I have a 93
Aerostar AWD Extended and a 91 Ranger 4.0, 4x4, auto, Xtracab. Both have
3.73 gears so they are spec'd very close (AWD comes standard with 4.0 and
auto, in case "Hans" doesn't know that). My Aerostar kicks butt on my
Ranger (handling, braking, acceleration), not that the Ranger is a dog.
When towing, it's even better (I have a 3,000 lb. boat). Mileage is
similar, I can get over 20 mpg on both, 15-16 'round town, 12-13 towing.
Now considering that a Ranger is very similar to an Explorer, I can carry
MORE people, probably better mileage (Explorer is heavier, less aerodynamic
than Aerostar), more cargo room and I prefer the driving position of the van
over the pick-up. It can easily cruise at 80 all day. Probably less for
insurance (not an SUV). Granted this is for an AWD model but the 3.0's are
not a dog, I used to own one. It was a sad day when Ford stopped making
this vehicle that was inexpensive, a major people/cargo hauler and goes
ANYWHERE that's not limited by ground clearance. On slick surfaces, the
Aerostar AWD if vastly superior to the standard part-time on the Ranger (I
have found this out the hard way). So....unless you're that 1% of the
Explorer or Ranger 4x4 owners that actually goes off-road (and I do take my
Aerostar off-road) explain to me why you think the Aerostar is inferior?
Okay, it's not a "cool" vehicle but you think a Ranger or Explorer is a
Ferrari?

Mark Biederbeck




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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:50:57 -0700
From: "J.S.H"
Subject: FTE Small - Taking intolerance to the next level

>Can we quit talking about Aerostars now, it's just a little mini-van >that's over weight and under powered and I wouldn't be caught dead >driving one.
>Hans


>I could have sworn that this was a list for trucks, not minivans. >Though I completely understand a few questions regarding the Aerostar >since this is also a Ford list, things have indeed gotten a bit out of >hand!
I'm much too busy to read all the messages that come in and I can't
possibly scroll past the ones that don't interest me,so I'm forced
to read all messages.
So here is my idea to alieve this problem.
We should quit discussing Rangers ,Bronco II's and Aerostars and only
talk about Explorers.
There can't possibly be any information about these other vehicles
that would relate to my Explorer.
So regardless of the rules we all read when we signed up,let's keep the
disscussion centered on tan and white 91 Explorers.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: 27 Oct 99 21:57:12 EDT
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: [FTE Small - Aerostars are trucks]

rgstein pacbell.net wrote:
> Christopher J Abele wrote --------------------------------------

> Let's face it: Aerostars are ugly minivans useful for toting the kids t=
o
> school and not much more. Sure, you could take out the back seats and
> have enough room to haul cargo, but if that's your main purpose in
> owning
> a Aerostar why didn't you just plan ahead and purchase a truck??

Or a full-size van or an enclosed cabin 4x4 (AKA SUV but I dont endorse t=
hat
term).
=

> Christopher, I hate to burst your bubble, but both Ford and my state DM=
V
> classify the Aerostar as a truck. =


And in NC my B-II is a station wagon!

> Perhaps someone else can clue us in on exactly what the
> distinctions really mean, aside from emissions requirements.

Trucks at the time also had lower standards for bumper requirements, air =
bags
and (I think) were weighted differently in figuring the CAFE (avg. fuel
mileage requirement for all vehicles sold per year). Made sense to class=
it
as a truck to save a few bucks on the bumpers and not take a penalty on t=
he
mileage thing. (point.. if Ford saves $500 per vehicle and makes 10,000 =
a
year of 'em that's a saving of $5 Million/year.)
=

> The Aerostar is truly useful in cities with scant driveway clearance an=
d
> almost impossible parking (such as San Francisco). =


Although my B-II has a MUCH tighter turning circle, but not the kid/cargo=

capacity..

> Ford managed to cram
> the most hauling space into the shortest body. In fact, my Aerostar is=

> actually shorter than my old Toyota Corona station wagon. =

> Unfortunately, Ford accomplished this feat by jamming the engine in so=

> tightly that you damn near can't repair it at all. =


Said that right! I'd love a few minutes in a dark alley with the design =
team
responsible for the engine compartment of the Aerostar. (For friendly
'discussion' only of course.) ;-) And now Chrysler has responded with i=
t's
'cab forward' designs... (Any idea where that cab wound up by going
forward?)

> And my Toyota car
> was "built like a truck," whereas, my Ford truck is built like some
> cheap flimsy piece of s**t from Toys R Us.

I like what they did the year they moved the shifter from the floor to th=
e
column. Use the carpeting in stock and cover the hole in the floor with =
a
cheap cup holder attached by 2 screws that has to be removed to get the s=
o
called 'engine cover' out. The engine itself seems to hold up well thoug=
h. =

(Thankfully.. I'd hate to be doing major work on 'em routinely.)

> =

> What they have in common with cars is their insane (contemptuous?)
> engineering with such severe obstructions that the cost of repairs will=

> ensure that you'll throw it out before its time. And other engineering=

> stupidities and materials stinginess that I'm inreasingly associating
> with Ford. =


Trust me.. it aint just Ford that has asinine engineering. (Although the=
new
Taurus certainly has an 'interesting' radiator placement... remove the fr=
ont
end as it's forward of the brace. plan on $2-300 LABOR for R&R)


> The transmission is a car tranny, legendary for falling
> apart.

At least on the auto's... having a strong preference for a manual transmi=
ssion
I say that's the price you pay.. I can change a LOT of clutches for the =
$$ a
shiftless tranny requires to be rebuilt and enjoy better MPG to boot.

> =

> The Areostar is not a cheap junky car: unfortunately it is a cheap junk=
y
> overpriced truck. Or perhaps we have just become accepting of being
> sold cheap junky automotive merchandise.

I hope that 'cheap' refers to quality not price.. I dont see how the ave=
rage
person can afford ANY of the new vehicles when they cost 2/3 the price of=
a
single wide mobile home for a SMALL car and 1/2 the price of a nice doubl=
e
wide or modular home for a decent full size 4x4. A co-worker had a nice
dualie Chebbie 454 until it was repo'ed and the payment was $750/month! =
For
that money I'd rather have a stable investment that appreciates (house/mu=
tual
fund) than something that instantly loses 1/3 of it's value when the ink =
is
dry on the contract and I drive off the lot. (BTW that truck had many
warranty issues that werent resolved to satisfaction involving the brakes=
,
engine and transmission within 18 months.. like I said it's not just Ford=
=2E)

Tim

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webm=
ail.netscape.com.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:28:02 -0400
From: Tony & Lisa Petty
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostars

Aerostars are appropriate for this list because they are built on the same
small truck chassis as the Ranger/Explorer. Check the FAQs.

The reason I got an Aerostar is that I needed to haul kids and cargo, and I
needed one affordable vehicle that could do both. This '94 van has done
everything asked of it - hauling equipment to worksites, camping/fishing
trips, and taking the kids to school. Aerostars are real workhorses because
underneath they are RWD trucks, not tepid FWD minivans. Looks are a matter
of opinion, but I think their shape has held up well over the years.

I have also owned several Mustangs and a Ranger, and I do have a new '99
F150 which I love, but our Aerostar has been the most versatile vehicle
that I have ever owned, and it gives up nothing to its fine Ford
stablemates. It's like a modern version of the original compact Econolines
of the 60s, especially now that it is no longer in production. I know of
several '90 and earlier Aerostars that are still going strong - I plan to
keep mine as long as possible because, quite frankly, nothing else on the
market compares to it.


Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 23:44:23 -0500
From: Christopher J Abele
Subject: FTE Small - Aerostars

I could have sworn that this was a list for trucks, not minivans. Though
I completely understand a few questions regarding the Aerostar since this
is also a Ford list, things have indeed gotten a bit out of hand!

Let's face it: Aerostars are ugly minivans useful for toting the kids to
school and not much more. Sure, you could take out the back seats and
have enough room to haul cargo, but if that's your main purpose in owning
a Aerostar why didn't you just plan ahead and purchase a truck??

If you want a Ford that really moves get a Mustang
If you want a Ford for hauling or towing get a F-series
If you want a Ford that can tow and carry passengers get an Explorer or
an Expidition
If you want a Ford to take the kiddies with you get an Aerostar

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

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

Date: 27 Oct 99 22:40:12 EDT
From: Tim Turner
Subject: FTE Small - Re: AWD Vs. Part time

"meb8100" wrote:
=

> I prefer the driving position of the van
> over the pick-up. =


Differing body from mine then; I prefer the B-II/Ranger/Explorer in 4x4 t=
rim,
but one size certainly does NOT fit all. :-)

> It can easily cruise at 80 all day. =


With the new radiator so will my '85 B-II (and most vehicles).

> Probably less for
> insurance (not an SUV). =


$56/Month liability only on mine and I have no license! (long story)

> On slick surfaces, the
> Aerostar AWD if vastly superior to the standard part-time on the Ranger=
(I
> have found this out the hard way). =


Huh? I'll take a manual hub set-up over a fully automatic one ANY day.
Admittedly it takes some thought/preparation to engage the hubs beforehan=
d but
it's a small price to pay Vs. the complexity and repair costs of the AWD.=


> So....unless you're that 1% of the
> Explorer or Ranger 4x4 owners that actually goes off-road (and I do tak=
e my
> Aerostar off-road) =


I am but it's a B-II (Ranger with an enclosed body).

> explain to me why you think the Aerostar is inferior?

Havent seen an AWD A'star at the places I haunt (which are 'easy' in most=

cases for off-road' folk) so I cant judge it's abilities there, but most=

issues center around it's reliability and 'ease' of service. I'd be
interested to see what the folk on the 'off-road' list would have to say =
if
you joined that one. (Less traffic than this list, but still great peopl=
e).)

> Okay, it's not a "cool" vehicle but you think a Ranger or Explorer is a=

> Ferrari?


Nope.. and it's not a Land Rover either. Like the (older) Escorts and Ta=....


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.