Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list small-list); Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar ford-trucks.com>
To: small-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: small-list Digest V2000 #154
Precedence: list

==========================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Small Chassis Truck Mailing List

Visit our  web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe small-list" in the subject  of  the
message.
==========================================================

------------------------------------
small-list Digest Thu, 21 Sep 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 154

In This Issue:
Don't do what I did ;)
Re: Don't do what I did ;)
 42 volts (some info)
Re: Don't do what I did ;)
Re: 42 volts (some info)
Subscription to forum at http://www.ford-trucks.com/cgi-b
Re: Tire Recommendation
Re: [  42 volts (some info)]
Bronco Gets the body work

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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:37:21 -0400
From: Chris Hunt <Chris Peake.com>
Subject: Don't do what I did ;)

After my wife complaining that my '94 Ranger 4x4 SC highboy rode too rough
I decided to replace the shocks. With 92,000 miles they were in need  ;)
The rears went in just fine (after lowering the spare) so I started working
on the front.  After a squirt of liquid wrench I started on the lower left
shock bolt.  With a 1/2" socket wrench I proceed to remove the combo
nut/washer and snap....  No big deal I thought, I'll just replace the
stud.  Whats this, the shock mount looks to be pressed into the radius
control arm.  Being a late Sunday afternoon I stopped.  Monday morning I
went to the local Ford Dealer...  Almost $600 to replace the whole radius
arm, new bushings, wheel alignment and (I knew this) a front bearing
repack.   Time for a second opinion.  Went to Pat Goss's Shop (The guy on
MoterWeek and Radio) and a real mechanic cut out the old shock mount and
put in a bolt-in, Installed the supplied shocks and repacked the front
bearings for $250.

Amazing what a $1.98 tube of anti-seize could have prevented.

Chris


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

From: "parker brooks" <whoz primary.net>
Subject: Re: Don't do what I did ;)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:09:42 -0500

hey chris,

where is his shop?

AND (hope this ain't stupid), is putting anti-seize on wheel lugs advisable,
or a no-no?

thanks,
parker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hunt" <Chris Peake.com>
To: <small-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:37 AM
Subject: [small-list] Don't do what I did ;)


> After my wife complaining that my '94 Ranger 4x4 SC highboy rode too rough
> I decided to replace the shocks. With 92,000 miles they were in need  ;)
> The rears went in just fine (after lowering the spare) so I started
working
> on the front.  After a squirt of liquid wrench I started on the lower left
> shock bolt.  With a 1/2" socket wrench I proceed to remove the combo
> nut/washer and snap....  No big deal I thought, I'll just replace the
> stud.  Whats this, the shock mount looks to be pressed into the radius
> control arm.  Being a late Sunday afternoon I stopped.  Monday morning I
> went to the local Ford Dealer...  Almost $600 to replace the whole radius
> arm, new bushings, wheel alignment and (I knew this) a front bearing
> repack.   Time for a second opinion.  Went to Pat Goss's Shop (The guy on
> MoterWeek and Radio) and a real mechanic cut out the old shock mount and
> put in a bolt-in, Installed the supplied shocks and repacked the front
> bearings for $250.
>
> Amazing what a $1.98 tube of anti-seize could have prevented.
>
> Chris
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>


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

Date:      Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:41:28 -0800
From: "Tom Watson" <tsw johana.com>
Subject:   42 volts (some info)

With the discussion about 42 volts, someone mentioned that 24 might
be the next "logical" step.  From what I read, the 42 number is made
up by using a "standard" voltage of 14 volts per 6 cell (lead-acid)
battery.  It turns out that current alternators put out a voltage
around 14 volts (turn on the engine, and measure the voltage at the
cigarette lighter (power accessory jack for the politically correct).

The 42 volts is (duh!?) three times this voltage.  From what I read,
there will STILL be a 12 (or so) volt accessory buss for the things
that we currently use, but all the "high power" things (brakes, valves,
power steering) will use the higher voltage.  I don't know if this
higher voltage will only be available when the engine is running (I
guess it must have some backup if it is to run the valves) but the
higher voltage will allow for smaller wire (the biggest concern), and
smaller current in the necessary switching transistors.

Why 42 volts, and not something higher??  It turns out that if you
limit things to less than 50 volts, there is an intrinsic "safety"
rating.  You don't need as many warning stickers, and you don't need
to keep the legal profession as employed.  Higher voltages of direct
current have a VERY nasty habit of inducing currents into humans
which they can't get away from.  This is one of the reasons that
telephone lines are at 48 volts.  Higher voltages get into a "UL"
type rating, and I suspect that the auto makers "don't want to go
there".

I doubt that 12 volt stuff will disappear overnight anyway.

Just for "background".
--
Tom Watson         Generic short signature
tsw johana.com     (I'm at home now)

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

From: "Ron,Marge,Ted" <rmtsadu sunlink.net>
Subject: Re: Don't do what I did ;)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:00:25 -0400


----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Hunt <Chris Peake.com>
To: <small-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:37 AM
Subject: [small-list] Don't do what I did ;)
) so I started working
> on the front.  After a squirt of liquid wrench I started on the lower left
> shock bolt.  With a 1/2" socket wrench I proceed to remove the combo
> nut/washer and snap....  No big deal I thought, I'll just replace the
> stud.  Whats this, the shock mount looks to be pressed into the radius
> control arm.  Being a late Sunday afternoon I stopped.  Monday morning I
> went to the local Ford Dealer...  Almost $600 to replace the whole radius
> arm

Hi Chris,

   Did the same thing on the wife's 94 Explorer. I snapped the mounting
stud off, which is pressed into the radius arm. Ran down to my brother's
back alley garage, had the remainder ground off and knocked out. He then
rummaged through his old junk parts bin and found a new shock mounting stud
which he promptly bolted in place on the original radius arm. Cost to
me...$0.00....well actually, a couple of beers! There are other alternatives
out there in place of a $600 radius arm!!
                                               Ron


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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:29:16 -0400
From: "Theodore D. Mills" <n3kwq martnet.com>
Subject: Re: 42 volts (some info)

Just a little info on 42V.

Most truck & bus electrical systems now use 24V for just about everything.
Some lighting, such as headlights, on the busses I deal with are standard
12v units, as are the radios, pa systems and fareboxes.

Believe it or not, computer controls are taking over the heavy diesel world
too.

Those who proclaim to know figure that power demands on the average heavy
truck or motorcoach will soon rise to the levels that will require 42 volt
systems.

Simple Ohm's law states that 2X the voltage reduces current by half.  The
wattage remains the same. (a 100W load requires 1/2 the current [amps] at
2X the voltage) lower current equals smaller wire size.

It would seem to make sense from the supply side if automotive and
truck/bus applications all go to 42V.

For what it's worth, 38 to 42 volts is a standard low voltage battery
system voltage on rail transit equipment since the late 1940's.


Ted

N3KWQ
Aston, Pa

84 Mustang GT (in pieces)
85 Ranger XL 2WD 2.8L
91 F-250 XLT Lariat SC 4X4x460
94 Taurus LX wagon 3.8L

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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:15:47 -0400
From: admin ford-trucks.com
Subject: Subscription to forum at http://www.ford-trucks.com/cgi-b


Following are new messages posted in the Ford Truck
Enthusiasts message board forums.  If you have any
questions, please use the contact form on the web site.

To remove your subscription, visit our Message Board at
www.ford-trucks.com, login, view any forum and click the
subscription link.  If you are subscribed to any of our
mailing lists, you receive this message automatically
as part of that subscription and it can only be disabled
by unsubscribing from the mailing list.
Messages posted in Explorer And Explorer Sport Trac
===========================================================
"RE: Explorer Hesitates"
Posted by reberhardt on 09/21/2000 18:26:30
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/explorer/201.html#2

Messages posted in Bronco II
===========================================================
"RE: some BII questions"
Posted by tbird6391 on 09/21/2000 20:28:32
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/bronco2/109.html#1

Messages posted in Ranger
===========================================================
"Weird overheating"
Posted by pdclint on 09/21/2000 12:52:10
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/ranger/379.html#0

"RE: Weird overheating"
Posted by pdclint on 09/21/2000 12:57:36
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/ranger/379.html#1

"RE: 1991 xlt- rough idle, only runs smooth when acclerating"
Posted by thelonerangerxlt on 09/21/2000 21:31:24
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/ranger/376.html#1

"RE: Burning out headlight switches"
Posted by thelonerangerxlt on 09/21/2000 21:46:28
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/ranger/375.html#1

"RE: Weird overheating"
Posted by thelonerangerxlt on 09/21/2000 21:58:59
http://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/ranger/379.html#2



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

From: "Summers, Burnett" <bernetts ptd.net>
Subject: Re: Tire Recommendation
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:32:43 -0400

Bill Ciocco wrote:

> I just bought a set of Uniroyal Tiger Paw AWPs for my Bronco II. I did alot of online research and
> they seem to be good, all around, long wearing, tires. They ride nice and look pretty good. I

I just had the same Uniroyals installed on my '89 BII. I bought them for price and because word of mouth says they last. I think they have an 80k mile rating vs. my previous tire's 65k. The only thing I didn't like about them was the Traction rating of B. (According to what I have read, this is a rating of wet traction versus other similar tires.) Still, I figured for about half of what I paid for my previous set of Goodyears (the Uniroyals were on special), I'd give them a try.

After two months of use, I have found that the Uniroyals don't have nearly the traction of the Goodyears in the wet OR dry. I have to drive much more conservatively with these tires and allow longer braking distances. With the Goodyears, I always felt confident in my ability to stop quickly. (On the other hand, when you consider the BII's reputation for being tippy, I worried a little about sudden/avoidance maneuvers with those tires.)

The Uniroyals also have a quiet smooth ride.

If it turns out that the Uniroyals last substantially more miles, I'd recommend them for normal or conservative drivers. I might even buy them again. For aggressive drivers, I'd look for more aggressive tires with better traction.

That's my .02 worth.

Burnett
'89 BII

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Ciocco [SMTP:bciocco yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 11:47 AM
To: small-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [small-list] Re: Tire Recommendation

I just bought a set of Uniroyal Tiger Paw AWPs for my Bronco II. I did alot of online research and
they seem to be good, all around, long wearing, tires. They ride nice and look pretty good. I
replaced some Dunlop GT Qualifiers RWL that I got a little more than 50K miles out of (Dunlop not
available at the dealer that I am now using). It was my second set of Dunlops, I got 50K out of
the first set too (in FL heat). (W/260K miles on this vehicle, I need long wearing tires).
The Uniroyal were a little less expensive and they seem to ride nicer (maybe because they are new
and I haven't raised the tire pressure to 32 psi yet). I wanted RWL in the Tiger Paw, but they are
not avail in 225-70-15, so I got the blackwall. About $300 out the door.
Dunlop - Made by Goodyear
Uniroyal - Made by Michelin

Bill

=====
~               .--~~,__
  :-....,-------`~~'._.'
   `-,,,  ,_      ;'~U'
    _,-' ,'`-__; '--.
   (_/'~~      ''''(;

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://im.yahoo.com/
=============================================================
To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
Please remove this footer when replying.


-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef



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

Date: 22 Sep 00 06:28:24 PDT
From: Chuck Badger <chuckbadger netscape.net>
Subject: Re: [  42 volts (some info)]

This sounds very similar to the arguments used to make the change over from 6
volts to 12 volts back in the sixties.  Higher voltage, lower current, smaller
wire can be used to support the load for less money.  The downside back then
was that everything went to 12 volts, not just a partial change over.  JC
Whitney sold a 6 volt to 12 volt converter for many years so that those with 6
volt systems could use the new radios and tape players in their vehicles.


"Tom Watson" <tsw johana.com> wrote:
With the discussion about 42 volts, someone mentioned that 24 might
be the next "logical" step.  From what I read, the 42 number is made
up by using a "standard" voltage of 14 volts per 6 cell (lead-acid)
battery.  It turns out that current alternators put out a voltage
around 14 volts (turn on the engine, and measure the voltage at the
cigarette lighter (power accessory jack for the politically correct).

The 42 volts is (duh!?) three times this voltage.  From what I read,
there will STILL be a 12 (or so) volt accessory buss for the things
that we currently use, but all the "high power" things (brakes, valves,
power steering) will use the higher voltage.  I don't know if this
higher voltage will only be available when the engine is running (I
guess it must have some backup if it is to run the valves) but the
higher voltage will allow for smaller wire (the biggest concern), and
smaller current in the necessary switching transistors.

Why 42 volts, and not something higher??  It turns out that if you
limit things to less than 50 volts, there is an intrinsic "safety"
rating.  You don't need as many warning stickers, and you don't need
to keep the legal profession as employed.  Higher voltages of direct
current have a VERY nasty habit of inducing currents into humans
which they can't get away from.  This is one of the reasons that
telephone lines are at 48 volts.  Higher voltages get into a "UL"
type rating, and I suspect that the auto makers "don't want to go
there".

I doubt that 12 volt stuff will disappear overnight anyway.

Just for "background".
--
Tom Watson         Generic short signature
tsw johana.com     (I'm at home now)
====================================


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.netscape.com/webmail

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:09:17 +0100
From: Adam McLaughlin <kd6poc jps.net>
Subject: Bronco Gets the body work

Today I went by my custom shop to check on the baby bronco. If you all
remember, I chopped the top off with a SawZall, and I am working on
having the corners and edges cleaned up to look factory professional.

Well, I brought it in Monday morning at 10 AM, and they still have it.
When I called, they said to check back on the truck Tuesday or
Wednesday. Since I had an hour for lunch, and the body shop is only 3
miles West of my work, I went down the street to check it out.

I found it in their garage, with a body man standing in the bed grinding
away on the top. He had already finished the rear corners, and was
cleaning up some welds on the top roof. I had wanted him to pinch weld
things around the top to close it up, but instead we decided on having
the top closed and re-inforced with some caps. He was cleaning up the
new welded on pieces up there when I arrived.

It looks good! I am really excited about this. The bottom window seam
follows from the original window edge all of the way back to the top of
the rear taillights. Looks totally factory. I can drill some holes in
it, and then run snaps or something like that. Cool. The top edge will
be rounded, so no kids or people can cut themselves coming inside or
outside of it.

I am having the truck spot painted in the bright, candy apple red that
the rest of the body is in. Aesthetics are inportant!

I am fortunate that they have given me a loaner car. It is an older
Corsica (Slow as a dog off of the line, makes the B2 even more powerful
by comparison) but since I am under twenty five I'm not complaining. (In
California, no one wants to give you a car if you are under 25) They
didn't ask for a deposit, or anything. Cool! All I have to do is to buy
gas, and we're set.

I'll tell everyone how it went and how much they got out of me to get
this done when they finish up. I'll snap some photos too.

Since I am installing a 1990 Ranger Tailgate, I want to paint it in
herculiner like the rest of the flooring. So, now I am off to Yardbirds
to get a cheap paint brush to apply the herculiner with.

Now, if the bopdy shop doesn't soak me for more than their estimate, I
will have enough dough left over to do the GT-40 Swap. We'll see. Gotta
find some good headers for that, but in case I can't turn up anything I
know a guy in town who can do custom headers. :-)

Adam






------------------------------ ....


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.