From: owner-small-list-digest ford-trucks.com (small-list-digest)
To: small-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list-digest V3 #289
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, November 5 1999 Volume 03 : Number 289



=======================================================================
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: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .
FTE Small - engine cleaning
Re: FTE Small - engine cleaning
RE: FTE Small - Explorers. . .
Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
RE: FTE Small - tires
FTE Small - 3.0L engine in Aerostar
FTE Small - Dropping in an Aerostar 3.0
FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: FTE Small - Converter Removal
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights
Re: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
FTE Small - re: Shocks
Re: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
Subject: FTE Small - tires
RE: Subject: FTE Small - tires
Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .
FTE Small - Timing chain
Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .
FTE Small - Shocks
Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
RE: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
FTE Small - Bleeding Aerostar Brakes
AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine in Aerostar
AW: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine
Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:24:25 EST
From: JIMBO01947 aol.com
Subject: Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

In a message dated 11/4/99 2:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ThomasUcen premiereworld.de writes:


thought
since they shared the platforms, they'd also share the engine. >>

No. The Rangers etc. got the 2.8/2.9/4.0 engines and the Aerostar got the
3.0. I don't know why but thats just the way it is:-)

>>There was some talk that the 3 liter Aerostar is underpowered. Is that =
a
problem of this specific engine or does the power get lost in the
transmission?>>

IMO My 87 Aerostar could have used a little more power but the 3.0 engine
itself is not low on power for a non hiperfromance pushrod engine. I think
it was rated at about the same as the 2.9 engine which is 140 HP. (In the US)

>>Even the Chrysler minivans with the small 4-cyl. engines =
and
less hp go faster - they have stick shift, though....>>

Even though the Chrysler minivan and the Aerostar are both called minivans,
they are totaly different vehicles. The Chrysler is lighter with less
frontal area and is front wheel drive. This adds up to less rolling
resistance.

PS
I don't have the Aerostar now but I have a 90 Ranger with the 2.9 engine. I
now drive this truck 1500 miles a week and it has 241,000 miles on it. The
motor has never been rebuilt and I believe it will go to 300,000 before a
rebuild is done. This is the best vehicle I have ever owned and I've owned
several. I leave those minivans in my DUST:-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 08:33:45 -0500
From: David Cooley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .

At 10:36 PM 11/4/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>That's what my 91 Eddie Bauer has in it, which brings me to another
>question: does this engine have a timing belt or a timing chain? It's
>approaching the 100,000 mile mark (82,000) and I'm starting to think about
>some extended maintenance. If it's a belt, it would need replacing and if
>it's a chain, it wouldn't require replacing under farther on down the line.
>
>Also, has anyone had any experience with a loud pecking noise on startup?
>When I start it up of a morning, I'm hearing a loud pecking noise which
>almost sounds like a piece of the valve train. However, I can't determine
>if it's coming from the engine or the air compressor (dang AutoZone second
>rate crap) which will be replaced under warranty soon. Just wondering if
>the 4.0 engine has any known problems like I'm describing that I should be
>on the lookout for.

The 4.0 has a timing chain. It's probably tim e to replace it if the noise
is coming from the front cover of the engine... If it's from the valve
covers, then it may be a lifter partially collapsed that's pumping back up,
or it could be your oil filter... The Motorcraft and SOME aftermarket
filters have an anti drainback valve that keeps oil in the filter when the
engine is off... If it doesn't have the valve, oil can syphon out of the
filter back into the pan, and the first few seconds of starting are done
with no oil circulation. Easiest way to tell is to open the oil filter box
and look at the end that screws on to the engine. The ring of holes for
the inlet should have some sort of rubber flap under them. If they are
just wide open, then it has no anti drainback valve.
===========================================================
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, 4 Nov 1999 08:56:12 -0500
From: "Steinbrook, Steve"
Subject: FTE Small - engine cleaning

I recently read an article about an engine cleaning system called MotorVac.
It claims restore performance, fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions by
cleaning the fuel delivery system, engine, and exhaust system of carbon
deposits, varnishes, etc. The system works by connecting the machine into
the fuel line to isolate the engine and fuel tank and clean them both
individually by "washing" with the machines detergents. I read on this list
a while ago about a pressurized can that hooks up to the fuel line to clean
injectors but this one is more extensive. The cost is said to range from
$50 - $150, and can only be done at a shop, unless you have the machine
yourself, I guess. Has anyone ever heard of this, had any experience with
this or have any comments at all?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:02:30 -0500
From: David Cooley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - engine cleaning

At 08:56 AM 11/4/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>I recently read an article about an engine cleaning system called MotorVac.
>It claims restore performance, fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions by
>cleaning the fuel delivery system, engine, and exhaust system of carbon
>deposits, varnishes, etc. The system works by connecting the machine into
>the fuel line to isolate the engine and fuel tank and clean them both
>individually by "washing" with the machines detergents. I read on this list
>a while ago about a pressurized can that hooks up to the fuel line to clean
>injectors but this one is more extensive. The cost is said to range from
>$50 - $150, and can only be done at a shop, unless you have the machine
>yourself, I guess. Has anyone ever heard of this, had any experience with
>this or have any comments at all?


I've seen pressurized fuel injector cleaning machines like that, but there
is no way it will "clean the exhaust". Just a marketing ploy to get you to
spend the money.

===========================================================
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, 4 Nov 1999 15:53:16 +0200
From: Bolte Brent
Subject: RE: FTE Small - Explorers. . .

Here is the approximate timeline for engine availability in the
Explorers:

1991-1995: Only one engine, the OHV 4.0L V6, was available.
You could get this in a 2WD or part time 4WD version.

1996: Two engines were available, the OHV 4.0L V6 and
the 5.0L V8 ( the V8 may have been available late in the
1995 model year but only as a 2WD ). You could get
either engine in a 2WD version. The OHV 4.0L V6 was
also available with Control Trac 4WD, the 5.0L V8 was
also available with full time AWD.

1997-Present: Three engines are now available, the OHV 4.0L
V6, the SOHC 4.0L V6 ( the SOHC 4.0L V6 may have been
available late in the 1996 model year ), and the 5.0L V8.
You can both of the V6 engines in 2WD version. Both V6
engines are also available with Control Trac 4WD, the V8
is only available in full time AWD.


While the frame, front sheetmetal, and many other
mechanical parts are similar to the Ranger pickup,
the Explorer was never available with the 2.9L V6,
the 3.0L V6, or any 4 cylinder engine.

From my knowledge all engines have metal timing chains.
The OHV V6 and the 5.0L V8 have a single timing chain that
runs from the crankshaft up to the camshaft.
The SOHC 4.0L V6 has three timing chains ( remember this
engine was not a "new" design, it is really only a heavily
modified OHV 4.0L V6 ). One runs from the crankshaft up
to a jackshaft ( a solid shaft running from the front of the
engine to the back of the engine in the place where the
camshaft used to be in the OHV version ). The second
chain runs from the front of the jackshaft ( radiator end of
the engine ) up to one of the overhead cams ( I believe the
one on the drivers side ). The third runs from the rear of
the jackshaft ( firewall end of the engine ) up to the other
overhead cam ( I believe this one goes to the passenger side ).
There may even be a forth chain on this engine running from
the end of the crankshaft to the balance shaft ( I can't remember
off the top of my head if this is a separate chain or if they are
using one of the other chains on the front of the engine to drive
the balance shaft ). Hope this info helps.

Thanks, Brent Bolte


On Tuesday, March 14, 2000, Christopher J. Abele wrote:

> I could have sworn that all explorers came with a 4.0L V6. Am I
> mistaken???

> Christopher J. Abele

This message has been virus scanned by KONE using Trend anti virus software
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:17:56 -0600
From: alannorthstar mindspring.com
Subject: Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:24:25 EST, you wrote:

:In a message dated 11/4/99 2:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,=20
:ThomasUcen premiereworld.de writes:
:
:
: thought
: since they shared the platforms, they'd also share the engine. >>
:
:No. The Rangers etc. got the 2.8/2.9/4.0 engines and the Aerostar got =
the=20
:3.0. I don't know why but thats just the way it is:-)
:
My 98 Ranger 4x4 has what Ford calls a 3.0 engine. The options were
that and a 4.0 engine. =20

What is it????


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:25:32 -0800
From: Ray Scheidnes
Subject: RE: FTE Small - tires

I had a 92 Ranger 4x2 before, with 14 inch rims, and I had a set of BFG all
terrains that fit. I don't recall the size, but I'm sure a decent tire shop
will know those details for you...

> ----------
> From: Joe Merchak[SMTP:jmerchak eclipse.net]
> Reply To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 7:15 PM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: RE: FTE Small - tires
>
> I had a 93 Ranger XLT 4X2 and I live in the North East. I replaced my
> tires
> with BFGoodrich AT 235-75R 15. What a difference, but you need to replace
> the stock 14" rims if you have them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-small-list ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-small-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Laura D. Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 8:53 PM
> To: small-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Small - tires
>
>
>
> I have a 1997 ford ranger XLT 4x2, and I live in the northeastern part of
> the country. We are already getting snow! Any suggestions for snow tires?
> Right now I have firestone tires.
> Laura
>
>
> == 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, 04 Nov 1999 08:10:55 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - 3.0L engine in Aerostar

Tom Ucen wrote ------------------------------------------------
They didn't put the 3 liter engine into the Ranger / Explorer? I =
thought
since they shared the platforms, they'd also share the engine.
There was some talk that the 3 liter Aerostar is underpowered. Is that =
a
problem of this specific engine or does the power get lost in the
transmission?

Me ------------------------------------------------------------
What I come up with is that Ford incorporated a "cruel and unusual" set
of gear ratios. The motor seems to wind out in the lower gears before
shifting (and does not "drop" into the higher gear when I take my foot
off the pedal as my older automatics would do) this startled me at
first, and took a long time to get used to, and I still don't like it.
I assume that the torque curve concentrates the power at higher revs,
like in the classic 4s.

In top gear (overdrive) I'd like more power. And the downshifting
sometimes feels uncertain (and inadequate). Driving up the Grapevine
southbound on Rte 5 in California toward LA, I just gave up trying to
push the thing and dropped back to around 45 mph (this is a very long,
severe grade). In fact, I was calling for so much more power than the
thing has that the "check engine" light came on just from the high
vacuum (I bought a code reader because of this incident).

The whole setup often feels touchy. The AC can rob just enough power to
really feel it on a grade. For me, the really big "aha" came from
changing two things:
1. Oil from Pennzoil to Mobil 1.
2. Replacing the plug wires.
Alas, with 80,000 on the motor, I run through a bit too much of the spec
5W30 oil in either brand, and will go to a 10W-- next.

Hope this is helpful.

Richard

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 08:27:46 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Dropping in an Aerostar 3.0

Ken Payne wrote ---------------------------------------------

the 3.0 from an
Aerostar will drop in nicely into a Ranger/Bronco II/Explorer
will ONLY an intake manifold swap. 4 banner owners of
Rangers/Bronco IIs/Explorers looking for more power may
want to find a 3.0 Aerostar at the wrecking yards!

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

Make certain that you don't use the Aerostar's dipstick tube, which may
be the second most maddening characteristic of the Aerostar. This bent
tube smears oil on the shiny poorly- (cheaply) etched dipstick, driving
me crazy as I try over and over again to get a true reading on the
stick.

(The Aerostar's ultimate crazy-maker is the super-long springy
transmission dipstick with that loop at the end. Not only does this
treat you to "bent tube smear," but it flops around, flicking
transmision oil on your clothing and everyplace while you desperately
try to see the level. Like Tim said, I'd like to meet the
designer/president of Ford in a dark alley...)

I worry that these dipstick designs may someday cost me my engine or my
transmission.

Also, at least around here, the Ford 3.0s are almost legendary for
blowing their head gaskets.

Richard

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 08:29:05 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

I keep seeing statements that "The Aerostar is built on the Ranger
chassis."

Exactly what does this mean?

Richard

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:00:24 -0600
From: Mike Harms
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Converter Removal

>There is some truth to the wives tale. Exhaust flow can affect the
>performance of a 4 cylinder engine. Typically it works to affect the
torque
>curve.

Doh.. I meant 4 cycle engine...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:26:59 EST
From: BiggRanger aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

The Aerostar is NOT built on a Ranger chassis. The Aerostar is a uni-body
vehicle, the a 4 link rear axle and coil springs, and a double "A" arm front
end with rack and pinion steering. The Ranger has a ladder type frame, rear
leaf spings, and a completely different type of front end (except for the
1998+ rangers). The only parts that are interchangeable between the Ranger
and Aerostar are the engines and transmitions (2wd).


BiggRanger

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/biggranger
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:27:56 -0500
From: "Glen Wilson"
Subject: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights

Hi!

If any non-Aerostar people can offer advice on this, please do!

New list member, here.

I recently purchased a 1992 Aerostar with rear ABS. Last weekend, I
"flushed" the old brake fluid out by simply bleeding all four wheels while
adding new DOT4 brake fluid to the reservoir. The old stuff was fairly
nasty looking, but not too bad. I did this by pumping the brake pedal with
the engine off. At no time did the reservoir level drop low enough to let
air into the system.

The problem is that I now have both the brake warning light and Rear ABS
light on at all times when the engine is running. I assume some sort of
proportioning valve got pushed into the wrong position or that I need to
reset some sort of "low pressure" sensor readout to get rid of the lights.
The brakes operat normally.

I'd appreciate some guidance on how to get things working right again.

Thanks.

Glen Wilson
Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html




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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:49:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Cagley
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights

may need to re-set the computer. not sure exact
procedure, usually involves disconnnecting the battery
and depressing the brake pedal for a set period of
time, say 30 seconds or so.

- --- Glen Wilson wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If any non-Aerostar people can offer advice on this,
> please do!
>
> New list member, here.
>
> I recently purchased a 1992 Aerostar with rear ABS.
> Last weekend, I
> "flushed" the old brake fluid out by simply bleeding
> all four wheels while
> adding new DOT4 brake fluid to the reservoir. The
> old stuff was fairly
> nasty looking, but not too bad. I did this by
> pumping the brake pedal with
> the engine off. At no time did the reservoir level
> drop low enough to let
> air into the system.
>
> The problem is that I now have both the brake
> warning light and Rear ABS
> light on at all times when the engine is running. I
> assume some sort of
> proportioning valve got pushed into the wrong
> position or that I need to
> reset some sort of "low pressure" sensor readout to
> get rid of the lights.
> The brakes operat normally.
>
> I'd appreciate some guidance on how to get things
> working right again.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Glen Wilson
> Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
> Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
> Website:
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html
>
>
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 12:55:48 -0500
From: "Glen Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

How can you say the Aerostar is a unibody? It has a frame.

Glen Wilson
Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html


- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."


> The Aerostar is NOT built on a Ranger chassis. The Aerostar is a uni-body
> vehicle, the a 4 link rear axle and coil springs, and a double "A" arm
front
> end with rack and pinion steering. The Ranger has a ladder type frame,
rear
> leaf spings, and a completely different type of front end (except for the
> 1998+ rangers). The only parts that are interchangeable between the Ranger
> and Aerostar are the engines and transmitions (2wd).
>
>
> BiggRanger
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/biggranger
> == 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, 4 Nov 99 13:00:04 EST
From: conan ralvm8.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: FTE Small - re: Shocks

I like Bilstein and use 'em on everything.
They're about $60ea for truck/suv now.
I get mine from Auto Sport Gallery in Raleigh NC. The owner IS a
friend of mine, but I don't get anything for recommending him. That
is a national price though. Any Bilstein dealer should be able to get
it for you.
Auto Sport Gallery is at 1-800-868-2002 and will ship. They are
working on a web site at www.autosportgallery.com but I don't think
it's up yet.
Ed in NC
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:06:27 -0500
From: "Glen Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights

Thanks, Mike.

Other comments appreciated.

Glen Wilson
Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Cagley
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Brake Warning Lights


> may need to re-set the computer. not sure exact
> procedure, usually involves disconnnecting the battery
> and depressing the brake pedal for a set period of
> time, say 30 seconds or so.
>
> --- Glen Wilson wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > If any non-Aerostar people can offer advice on this,
> > please do!
> >
> > New list member, here.
> >
> > I recently purchased a 1992 Aerostar with rear ABS.
> > Last weekend, I
> > "flushed" the old brake fluid out by simply bleeding
> > all four wheels while
> > adding new DOT4 brake fluid to the reservoir. The
> > old stuff was fairly
> > nasty looking, but not too bad. I did this by
> > pumping the brake pedal with
> > the engine off. At no time did the reservoir level
> > drop low enough to let
> > air into the system.
> >
> > The problem is that I now have both the brake
> > warning light and Rear ABS
> > light on at all times when the engine is running. I
> > assume some sort of
> > proportioning valve got pushed into the wrong
> > position or that I need to
> > reset some sort of "low pressure" sensor readout to
> > get rid of the lights.
> > The brakes operat normally.
> >
> > I'd appreciate some guidance on how to get things
> > working right again.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Glen Wilson
> > Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
> > Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
> > Website:
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> >
>
>
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 11:42:32 -0800
From: "Hans Luckoff"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

Glen, He can say that because some people don't know the difference
between uni-body or a vehicle with a frame, why don't you explain it for
them. Hans
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Glen Wilson
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."


> How can you say the Aerostar is a unibody? It has a frame.
>
> Glen Wilson
> Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
> Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
> Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
>
>
> > The Aerostar is NOT built on a Ranger chassis. The Aerostar is a
uni-body
> > vehicle, the a 4 link rear axle and coil springs, and a double "A" arm
> front
> > end with rack and pinion steering. The Ranger has a ladder type frame,
> rear
> > leaf spings, and a completely different type of front end (except for
the
> > 1998+ rangers). The only parts that are interchangeable between the
Ranger
> > and Aerostar are the engines and transmitions (2wd).
> >
> >
> > BiggRanger
> >
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/biggranger
> > == 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, 4 Nov 1999 14:52:31 EST
From: BiggRanger aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

Sorry, but the Aerostar is a uni-body vehicle. The body is an intigral part
of the frame, and helps to strengthen the frame. If you were able to drill
out all the spot welds that connect the body to the "sub" frame you would and
up with 2 runners that run the length of the van made out of .095" stamped
sheet metal. This is the same type of construction as most rear wheel drive
uni-body cars.
This is in no way the same type of chasis as a Ranger. The Ranger has a
seprate frame made out of stamped steel that is completely seprate, and needs
no additional support or strength from the cab or bed. The bed can be easily
removed by unscrewing 6 bolts, a wire harness and gas cap. And will not in
any way weaken the frane of the truck. Same goes for the cab.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:32:23 -0500
From: "Glen Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

Well, being a newbie, I don't know if I'm getting into the middle of
something here, but here goes.

Most manufacturers introduced "unibody" or "unit body" vehicles in the 50's
and 60's. The idea was to eliminate the frame and make the body of the car
sufficiently strong and rigid to carry all of the loads and torsional
stresses. Eliminating the frame made the vehicle cheaper to produce and
generally made the vehicle tighter thereby eliminating a lot of rattles. At
first, manufacturers had little experience with unit body construction and
didn't really trust it. As a result, early unit body cars were
"overengineered" in the sense that manufacturers used thicker steel and more
bracing than they really needed. Another result of their inexperience was
that they incorporated many sections in the designs that were prime
candidates for rust formation. Many early unit body cars rusted badly and
became structurally unsound.

As time went by and the manufacturers got more experienced, unit body cars
were able to take full advantage of the cost and weight savings afforded by
the elimination of the frame. Some large automobiles continued to use a
traditional frame well into the 80's and perhaps into the 90's, but
virtually all passenger cars now have unit body construction though some may
still use subframes attached to the unit body to carry the engine and front
suspension.

The main drawback of unit body design was that it wasn't as strong as a
traditional frame design when it came to carrying heavy loads and towing. I
suppose that this is because the frame member itself is just a big honking
piece of steel that distributes any load fairly well across the entire
frame. This is why just about every vehicle we call a truck has a frame as
opposed to a unit body. This includes vans like the Econoline but not
minivans like the Plymouth Voyager or Ford Windstar.

This is why I bought an Aerostar in the first place. The Aerostar has a
traditional frame to which the body is mounted. It really is a truck and ha
s a significantly higher towing capacity than any unit body minivan does
since towing capacity has a lot to do with the tow vehicles frame strength
and weight. Horsepower and torque seem to be secondary factors.

The tradeoff is that the Aerostar sits much higher and rides more like a
truck that a car. The Plymouth Voyager and Ford Windstar sit lower, are
easier to get in and out of, and ride and handle much more like a car.

One more advantage of the Aerostar (for me), is that it has shock absorbers
at all four corners with no stinking MacPherson struts to mess with......


Glen Wilson
Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Luckoff
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."


> Glen, He can say that because some people don't know the difference
> between uni-body or a vehicle with a frame, why don't you explain it for
> them. Hans
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Glen Wilson
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
>
>
> > How can you say the Aerostar is a unibody? It has a frame.
> >
> > Glen Wilson
> > Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
> > Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
> > Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 12:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."
> >
> >
> > > The Aerostar is NOT built on a Ranger chassis. The Aerostar is a
> uni-body
> > > vehicle, the a 4 link rear axle and coil springs, and a double "A" arm
> > front
> > > end with rack and pinion steering. The Ranger has a ladder type frame,
> > rear
> > > leaf spings, and a completely different type of front end (except for
> the
> > > 1998+ rangers). The only parts that are interchangeable between the
> Ranger
> > > and Aerostar are the engines and transmitions (2wd).
> > >
> > >
> > > BiggRanger
> > >
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/biggranger
> > > == 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, 4 Nov 1999 15:42:04 -0500
From: "Glen Wilson"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

I would say that the key to this would be that you can generally remove the
body from a traditional frame-type vehicle and either roll or drive it
around. If the wheels and drivetrain are bolted to the body and not the
frame, I'd be more inclined to call it a unit body design. I've only been
under my Aerostar once, so far, so I can't answer this question. I'm basing
my classification of the Aerostar as a non-unibody vehicle on all of the
road tests and design evaluations done in the auto magazines. They all say
that the Aerostar is not a unibody vehicle.

Maybe it's really some sort of hybrid?

Have you guys argued about this before?

;)

Glen Wilson
Email: RoverCar voicenet.com
Rover Saloon Touring Club of America
Website: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://clubs.hemmings.com/rovercar/rstca.html


- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."


> Sorry, but the Aerostar is a uni-body vehicle. The body is an intigral
part
> of the frame, and helps to strengthen the frame. If you were able to drill
> out all the spot welds that connect the body to the "sub" frame you would
and
> up with 2 runners that run the length of the van made out of .095" stamped
> sheet metal. This is the same type of construction as most rear wheel
drive
> uni-body cars.
> This is in no way the same type of chasis as a Ranger. The Ranger has a
> seprate frame made out of stamped steel that is completely seprate, and
needs
> no additional support or strength from the cab or bed. The bed can be
easily
> removed by unscrewing 6 bolts, a wire harness and gas cap. And will not in
> any way weaken the frane of the truck. Same goes for the cab.
> == 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, 4 Nov 1999 18:49:05 EST
From: JIMBO01947 aol.com
Subject: Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

In a message dated 11/4/99 10:27:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
alannorthstar mindspring.com writes:


that and a 4.0 engine. =20

What is it???? >>
Hehe..I'll retract my statement...I forgot that Ford was still building
vehicles after 1995.....:=)

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:13:24 -0600
From: Kevin Bice
Subject: Subject: FTE Small - tires

> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 20:52:47 -0500
> From: "Laura D. Wheeler"
> Subject: FTE Small - tires
>

I purchased some Goodyear Wrangler AT/S for my 92 Ford ranger and have
been very happy with them. The tread is somewhat aggressive but almost no road
noise.
They also handle very well on wet pavement. I don't spin and slide on the
pavement like the old
tires. (Old tires were Goodyear eagle ST if I remember correctly) I'm not sure
what size tires the newer rangers
have on them now, but I was able to get these AT/S in 225/70 14

Kevin


>
> I have a 1997 ford ranger XLT 4x2, and I live in the northeastern part of
> the country. We are already getting snow! Any suggestions for snow tires?
> Right now I have firestone tires.
> Laura
>
> == 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, 4 Nov 1999 18:31:20 -0600
From: trio tigroupchicago.com
Subject: RE: Subject: FTE Small - tires

I have always been partial to Goodyear, but I just put a set of the new
BFGoodrich AT\ko's on my Jeep, and they are outstanding! Quiet on-road,
very capable off-road, and a 3-ply sidewall. I plan to get a set for my
Explorer in a few weeks. I highly recommend them.

>
> I have a 1997 ford ranger XLT 4x2, and I live in the northeastern part of
> the country. We are already getting snow! Any suggestions for snow tires?
> Right now I have firestone tires.
> Laura
>
> == 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, 04 Nov 1999 19:00:28 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .

No, Since the Explorer was introduced in late 1990 (model yr 91) the came with
only one engine; the 4.0L V-6. I believe it was in the 95-96 time frame when the
small V-8's were optional.



"David A. Cooley" wrote:

> At 11:50 PM 3/14/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I could have sworn that all explorers came with a 4.0L V6. Am I
> >mistaken???
>
> Some of the older ones (91 or so) came with a 4 cyl (I think) and starting
> in 96, you could get a 5.0L V8 with AWD.
>
> ===========================================================
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 17:56:14 -0800
From: "S.Harkema"
Subject: FTE Small - Timing chain

My 91 Explorer has a 4.0 and it has a timing chain,not a belt.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 21:08:33 -0500
From: "David A. Cooley"
Subject: Re: FTE Small - Explorers. . .

At 07:00 PM 11/4/99 -0700, you wrote:
>No, Since the Explorer was introduced in late 1990 (model yr 91) the came with
>only one engine; the 4.0L V-6. I believe it was in the 95-96 time frame
>when the
>small V-8's were optional.
>


Yep... 96 was the first year of the 5.0L V8 and checked my service
manual... 4.0L V6 was the only engine available until 96. 97 the SOHC 4.0L
V6 became available.

===========================================================
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, 4 Nov 1999 19:20:20 -0800
From: "meb8100"
Subject: FTE Small - Shocks

Rob Quarles wrote:

"Anybody had any experience with after market (HD) shocks (Edelbrocks in
particular) on Explorers? Mine is a '98, 4 door 2WD, w/ 4.0 SOHC, 35,000
miles and the stock shocks are history. I don't plan on EVER going off road,
but do tow a (

I have had EXCELLENT luck with KYB Gas-adjust shocks (note: they're not
really adjustable). They didn't make the ride suffer at all but really add
control over bumps. Since they're not big on advertising, the price is
right. I bought a set for an AWD Aerostar (yes, it IS a truck, it tows over
3,000 lbs!) for about $100 and there is (I think) a lifetime warranty but
I've never had one go bad.

Mark Biederbeck








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

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

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:05:58 -0500
From: "Theodore D. Mills"
Subject: Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

>
> thought
> since they shared the platforms, they'd also share the engine. >>
>
>No. The Rangers etc. got the 2.8/2.9/4.0 engines and the Aerostar got the
>3.0. I don't know why but thats just the way it is:-)
>
They did put the 3.0 in the Ranger.
A buddy of mine had a 94 4X2 with 5 speed 3.0.


"This message brought to you with 100% recycled electrons"
"Just the latest in environmentally friendly technology!"


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:09:59 -0500
From: "Joe Merchak"
Subject: RE: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine

That not true, my 1993 Ranger XLT had a 3.0L with 4 speed auto, had 120K
miles on the truck before trading it in. I never used more than 3/4 of a
quart of oil between changes and it never leaked a drop. I like it so much,
my 1999 has a 3.0L also.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-small-list ford-trucks.com
[mailto:owner-small-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of JIMBO01947 aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 7:24 AM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine


In a message dated 11/4/99 2:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ThomasUcen premiereworld.de writes:


thought
since they shared the platforms, they'd also share the engine. >>

No. The Rangers etc. got the 2.8/2.9/4.0 engines and the Aerostar got the
3.0. I don't know why but thats just the way it is:-)

>>There was some talk that the 3 liter Aerostar is underpowered. Is that =
a
problem of this specific engine or does the power get lost in the
transmission?>>

IMO My 87 Aerostar could have used a little more power but the 3.0 engine
itself is not low on power for a non hiperfromance pushrod engine. I think
it was rated at about the same as the 2.9 engine which is 140 HP. (In the
US)

>>Even the Chrysler minivans with the small 4-cyl. engines =
and
less hp go faster - they have stick shift, though....>>

Even though the Chrysler minivan and the Aerostar are both called minivans,
they are totaly different vehicles. The Chrysler is lighter with less
frontal area and is front wheel drive. This adds up to less rolling
resistance.

PS
I don't have the Aerostar now but I have a 90 Ranger with the 2.9 engine. I
now drive this truck 1500 miles a week and it has 241,000 miles on it. The
motor has never been rebuilt and I believe it will go to 300,000 before a
rebuild is done. This is the best vehicle I have ever owned and I've owned
several. I leave those minivans in my DUST:-)

Jim
== 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, 04 Nov 1999 13:35:00 -0800
From: rgstein pacbell.net
Subject: FTE Small - Bleeding Aerostar Brakes

Glen Wilson wrote ------------------------------------------------

Last weekend, I
"flushed" the old brake fluid out by simply bleeding all four wheels
while
adding new DOT4 brake fluid to the reservoir.

The problem is that I now have both the brake warning light and Rear ABS
light on at all times when the engine is running.

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

There is a special procedure for bleeding Aerostar brakes.
Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it: maybe it was here.

I'm just replying to alert you to the fact that it is not
straightforward, and that there is a _right_ way to do it. And maybe
someone else's post will do the job.

Let us know what you find out, please.

Richard


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:15:07 +0100
From: ThomasUcen premiereworld.de
Subject: AW: FTE Small - 3.0L engine in Aerostar

This is a PERFECT description of the situation. A few years ago, I had a
Chrysler LeBaron with an engine that had about the same power and
displacement. Even though that car was not too much lighter, it felt like it
had double power.
Someone I know has the 4-liter engine in his Aerostar. According to what he
says, power is much better. But gas consumption is enormous......We pay
about $3.50 / gallon for regular gas!

Tom
1993 Aerostar 3.0L
Munich, Germany


Richard wrote: -----------------------------------------------------
What I come up with is that Ford incorporated a "cruel and unusual" set
of gear ratios. The motor seems to wind out in the lower gears before
shifting (and does not "drop" into the higher gear when I take my foot
off the pedal as my older automatics would do) this startled me at
first, and took a long time to get used to, and I still don't like it.
I assume that the torque curve concentrates the power at higher revs,
like in the classic 4s.

In top gear (overdrive) I'd like more power. And the downshifting
sometimes feels uncertain (and inadequate). Driving up the Grapevine
southbound on Rte 5 in California toward LA, I just gave up trying to
push the thing and dropped back to around 45 mph (this is a very long,
severe grade). In fact, I was calling for so much more power than the
thing has that the "check engine" light came on just from the high
vacuum (I bought a code reader because of this incident).

The whole setup often feels touchy. The AC can rob just enough power to
really feel it on a grade. For me, the really big "aha" came from
changing two things:
1. Oil from Pennzoil to Mobil 1.
2. Replacing the plug wires.
Alas, with 80,000 on the motor, I run through a bit too much of the spec
5W30 oil in either brand, and will go to a 10W-- next.

Hope this is helpful.

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: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:21:21 +0100
From: ThomasUcen premiereworld.de
Subject: AW: FTE Small - "...built on a Ranger chassis."

The Aerostar also has a ladder-type frame. However, the frame metal is very
soft so I wouldn't trust it to be too strong without the body. Upon import,
local laws required me too have the VIN punched into the frame. I still can....


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.