Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages
contained in these archives without consent from the respective
author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on
any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by
individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors.

Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list 80-96-list); Sun, 07 May 2000 08:03:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 08:03:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server>
To: 80-96-list digest users>
Subject: 80-96-list Digest V2000 #80
Precedence: bulk

Ford Truck Enthusiasts 80-96 Truck Mailing List

Visit our web site:

To unsubscribe, send email to: with
the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the

80-96-list Digest Sat, 06 May 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 080

In This Issue:
Hmmmm Wierd
Re: High-Beam switch
Re: F250 Diesel
Re: F-250 Diesel
Re: F250 Diesel
Re: High-Beam switch
Re: Bell sound at front wheel.
Re: Bell Sound
"Grinding" in front brakes
Interchange manual
Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert
turn signal cam
Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert
Re: F250 Diesel
Shift lever adjustment
Re: "Grinding" in front brakes
Re: Brakes


Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Kudulis>
Subject: Hmmmm Wierd

94 F250 4x4 Manual Lockouts E4OD 351W.
About a month ago my transmission started to shift into 2nd gear hard enough
to rattle the dash. It just hammered into gear. Other gears seemed to wait
too long to shift and then did so with another pounding. I talked to a Ford
truck nut buddy and he told me to disconnect the battery for about 4 hours,
restart the truck and let it idle for 10 minutes. I scratched my head and
tried it. Worked like a charm. Shifts were smooth and on time. Hmmm.
Yesterday I pulled my camper out and used 4WD so I didn't goof up the grass.
After taking the beast out of 4WD, the teeth rattling shifts were back.
Tried the battery thing again. Perfect. Thinking back the first time the
malady occurred we had a really big snowstorm and the truck was in 4WD the
day before. Hmmm. I tried the 4WD again yesterday and sure enough. Checked
the computer codes, no errors. My buddy does not know why the remedy works
or whats wrong, just that "any problem with the truck, battery disconnect,
has a good chance of fixing". Who wants to venture an opinion?

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite


From: "Steve Schmeckpeper">
Subject: Re: High-Beam switch
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 08:30:20 -0500

Hi Chris,
Peel the carpet back away from the switch, and you should be able to unscrew
from the floorboard.


-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Chris McKinnon
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:22 AM
Subject: [80-96-list] High-Beam switch

How does one go about changing the floor high-beam switch? Mine cuts the
high beams to mothing once and a while but a good boot to the side of the
switch fixes it. This is somewhat un-nerving while driving down a dark,
lonely back road.
'84 F150 w/ original rust!
351W on propane
NP 435
NP 208 3.50LS
292K Km

To unsubscribe, send email to: with
the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the


From: "Dave Harmier">
Subject: Re: F250 Diesel
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 08:46:17 -0500

Dude, I just acquired a '90 Crew Cab Diesel, and I freakin' LOVE my

However I am not sure the E4OD tranny was one of Fords better ideas. I
think it was planted to piss us off by General Malfunction. Anyhow, if the
truck seems okay otherwise I think you'll like it!

Generallly look underneath, at the front brakes, suspension parts, are all
the rivets tight?

I can't think of anything else right now. ENJOY your BIG, MANLY, TOUGH GUY

Dave H.
'90 F-350 Crew Diesel, Knapheide Service Body, Tommy Lift "The BEAST"
'91 F-150 SC Long WB, 5.8, crossbed toolbox, Tommy Lift "Dads"
'92 F-150 SC Short WB, 5.0, crossbed toolbox "Sisters"

>Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 21:35:41 -0600
>From: Mike Hand>
>Subject: f250 diesel

>I'm looking at a '90 f250 4x4 XLT extended cab (135k miles) with the
>diesel engine and automatic transmission. The thing needs two new
>batteries, but other than that, it appears to be in good shape with no
>real problems. HOWEVER, I'm not as familiar with some other vehicles.
>What should I look for? Look out for? I don't believe mileage is an
>issue with the diesel engine, but what else is? Does this list have a
>checklist I can read? Thanks in advance.
>'94 Taurus SHO
>'84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer
>'69 Cessna 182.


Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 10:03:31 EDT
Subject: Re: F-250 Diesel

You'll want to ensure there are no pin hole leaks in the cooling water
jackets around the cylinders. It is a fairly common problem with the diesels
if the owner failed to use the FW-15(?) cooling system additive. A rough and
ready test for the problem is to observe the exhaust upon first starting the
engine after an overnight rest. If the exhaust is white upon first starting
it is indicative that coolant may be present in the cylinders. Another rough
and ready test is to examine the coolant with the cap removed with the engine
warmed up and running. If you observe small bubbles coming up in the coolant
watch out. Neither of these tests is definitive, but if the symptoms are
present it is probably worth having a Ford or Navistar shop check it out
further before buying.

Better info is available at

FWIW, my 90 F-250 diesel 4X2 is running strong although it has about half the
miles of yours and I've added an ATS Turbocharger kit and a 3 inch exhaust.

They're great trucks.



Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 07:08:23 -0700
From: chuck sanborn>
Subject: Re: F250 Diesel

At 08:46 AM 5/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Dude, I just acquired a '90 Crew Cab Diesel, and I freakin' LOVE my
>However I am not sure the E4OD tranny was one of Fords better ideas. I
>think it was planted to piss us off by General Malfunction.

If you want to know more about your E4OD go to:


From: "Serian">
Subject: Re: High-Beam switch
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:41:39 -0400

> How does one go about changing the floor high-beam switch?

Its real easy (an automotive first, eh ? :-) )
All you need to do is peel up the floor mat/carpet around the switch
and you will see the whole switch, held in by two bolts. Just unplug
the harness from it (also visible once the floor mat/carpet is peeled up)
and take out the bolts, and yer ready to put the new one in.


Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 11:41:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Bell sound at front wheel.

I need to know what year your truck is. You know why.

Wayne Foy
94 Flareside SC
1999 Fun Ford Weekend
Racing series
#2 Top Truck
Atlanta GA


Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 09:22:11 -0700
From: Marv & Marge>
Subject: Re: Bell Sound

Scott Obert wrote about his "bell" sound:

> Thanks Dave! That was it! I guess you were right too Wayne, I guess I
> needed that extra specific description from Dave to overcome my lack of
> mechanical knowledge. Boy I feel dumb now. LOL

Actually, you should feel SMART, now.

1. You got it fixed correctly.
2. You're a member of the most helpful list on the Internet.

You're smarter than the guy next door with a Ford truck that doesn't read
"the group". He'll ride around with that sound for a LONG time.



Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 12:10:14 -0600
From: Charles Biggs>
Subject: "Grinding" in front brakes

My 90 model F-150 developed a "grinding" sound in the front end when
braking so I pulled the front wheels and the only thing I could find was
both the outer pads were lose on their mounts. I guess the "stickum" I
bought when I replaced the pads the last time did not bond well so I
used a heavy dose of silicone sealer and attached both of the front
outer pads thinking this would solve the problem. It is still there. I
have checked the bearings and the nearly new pads several times and I
cannot find out what is causing the "grinding" noise when I brake. It
appears to be louder at very slow speeds just when coming to a complete

Any ideas where to look next?

Thanks for any suggestions.

Chuck Biggs (Home Page) (NASA PAO Reunion 2000)


Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 11:26:15 -0700
From: chuck sanborn>
Subject: Interchange manual

Is there another interchange manual besides Hollander's for our trucks?
Anybody come up with an answer to my question about the benchseat
adjuster in my F150? Is it a cable or a rod?


From: "Shawn & Jennifer Clark">
Subject: Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 14:18:09 -0500


I hate to say this since I have only respect for the services you provide,
but I disagree with most of the statements in this legislative alert. I am
an engineer, I like things with more power AND more efficiency. I also
have worked on a few small energy savings projects and in doing so came to
the realization that we (American citizens and corporations) do not
properly value energy. Personally, I don't mind paying fair value for
something. If people want to oppose changing the CAFE standards because it
will make it harder for them to buy larger and more powerful trucks, then I
can understand and respect that. However, many of the other arguments
thrown out are highly dubious.

>>Lead to more deaths on our nation's highways. Increased CAFE standards
larger vehicles will force consumers into smaller cars with higher accident
fatality rates. A USA Today analysis found that "46,000 people have died
crashes they would have survived in bigger heavier cars." This works out to
"roughly 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained" by driving smaller
cars (USA Today, July 2, 1999)<<

This is a real stretch and I really doubt it. USA Today analysis??? Not
exactly experts and typical media analysis is rather simplistic rubbish
when examining technical issues. For starters the problem is far more
complex than stated. To be certain, the fatality rate of occupants of
large vehicles smashing into smaller ones as opposed to the smaller vehicle
occupants is heavily skewed toward the big boys surviving. However, if you
end up with fewer large vehicles on the road, the number of such collisions
will by definition fall, thereby reducing the number of fatalities from
this kind of collision (the smaller guy gets a big break.) To be sure,
your chances of surviving a collision (in any vehicle) with a lighter truck
will be greater than surviving one with a heavier one. Analyzing only one
side of the argument is intellectually dishonest.

There are many other factors which I won't try to tackle but I will point
out some other obvious things. Comparisons based on size/weight alone are
going to be skewed by all sorts of factors. Heavier vehicles are typically
purchased (the new ones) by older folks that can afford them. Econo boxes
and small trucks are purchased by younger drivers on average. Younger
drivers tend to have higher accident rates and cover more miles. Sports car
fatality rates are going to be high when compared with Lincoln Town Cars of
Ford Expeditions. Much of this is due to the driver rather than the car.
If you make the Lincoln smaller and/or more efficient, grandma will still
want the Lincoln *or something in the same class*. She won't buy the
sports car. This makes the whole comparison incredibly complex.

>>Higher CAFE Standards will not…Improve on pollution. CAFE was enacted in
1975 to conserve fuel, not to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The idea that manmade CO2 emissions will
drastically reduce through higher CAFE standards is inaccurate. Even
doubling the fuel economy of new cars in the U.S. would reduce manmade CO2
emissions less than one percent worldwide.<<

FALSE. Regardless of the reasoning for enacting the law, improving
efficiency will reduce emissions per mile driven. This is a simple
material balance. If I drive 1000 miles at 20 mpg I will convert 50
gallons of gas into emissions of one form or another (H20 being the cheif
benign component.) If I drive the same distance at 10 mpg I will convert
100 gallons. I find the final sentence highly dubious but I don't have
official numbers in front of me to debunk it. If I remember correctly, the
US consumes 25% of the world's energy. I'm not sure what percentage of
that is gasoline/diesel. I'm thinking it is 1/3 but it may be lower.
Let's assume 25%. That would translate into 0.25*0.25=0.0625 or 6.25% of
the world's energy use. Were the US to magically double fuel economy today
that would translate into a 3% worldwide reduction. It would cut U.S. oil
for gasoline consumption by half. This would undoubtedly reduce the price
of gasoline as well. In reality, it would be fazed in over years as new
cars enter the fleet and old ones leave. The final effect is the same.
Additionally, any technology gains will eventually reach other markets and
thereby reduce the rest of the world's emissions and fuel consumption per
vehicle as well.

>>Reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. To date, CAFE and small cars have
done little to reduce gasoline consumption and the U.S. imports more
oil today than when CAFE standards were first imposed.<<

Nice try, but there is a simple reason for that. The average weight of new
vehicles has in fact not fallen from where it was 30 years ago. A couple
of years ago one of the car mags did the calcs. The average of the top ten
vehicles weights multiplied by sales was roughly the same now as it was
before. What??? How can that be??? The answer was simple. There has
been a shift from heavy land yacht cars to trucks and vans, which are
massive in their own right. Why the switch? An obvious reason is that the
CAFE standards are so lax for trucks compared to cars. If Americans wanted
big vehicles it was easier to shift them to trucks, vans and the new SUV

>>Save the consumer money at the gas pump with more fuel efficient
Total gas consumption depends on factors such as total miles traveled, the
make-up of the overall vehicle fleet and gasoline prices, NOT simply on new
vehicle mileage standards.<<

I don't know about the rest of you, but I drive about 12,000 miles per
year. By calculation, over half of those are daily commute. About one
quarter are other necessary trips (groceries, doctor, etc.) and the final
quarter is discretionary--fun time. If my vehicle mileage were better, I
would pay less for gasoline, plain and simple. I would have to add quite a
few more fun trips to offset even a 10% improvement in mileage. If I
decided to drive the extra miles and eat up all of that gain, then I would
benefit from the extra "fun time". Either way, I'm happier.

Now for a really unpopular opinion. I have crunched the numbers in the
past and I don't like where the world is headed with respect to energy
usage and emissions. It is not the U.S. alone which concerns me. The
problem is when the rest of the world starts catching up to us in energy
consumption per person. Imagine 3 billion Chinese and Indians using as
much energy per person as we do today (less than 300 million of us in the
U.S.) Energy is going to get godawful expensive if demand even starts to
approach this level. We are slowly headed that way, year by year. In a
few years you will see what I mean. The advantage we can gain is to take
small steps such as CAFE to improve efficiency ahead of the rest of the
world. We can use technical advantages gained by these efforts to keep our
standard of living higher than the rest of the world.

Another approach would be to throw out CAFE altogether. Heresy for me,
right? No, I would replace it with rather large gasoline taxes of several
dollars per gallon (phased in of course) and let the free market take its
course from there. This would put us more in line with the rest of the
world. The choice would then left to the consumer to purchase the best
balance of size/efficiency for their pocketbook. Those that could afford
the high gasoline prices could still drive whatever they liked. Low
mileage, polluting Clunkers would begin to disappear from the road or get
properly repaired--because it would not be cost effective for them to run
poorly. What to do with all that tax money, "I don't want them evil Feds
using it?" Simple, start a Manhattan project on fusion research, energy
efficiency, and alternatives to hydrocarbon energy sources. It will take
many years and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, but something like
fusion is the only way we will be able to supply the world's energy needs
by the time I am an old man--at least if I don't want to choke in the fumes
of all those Chinese and pay several hundred dollars for a scarce gallon of
gasoline. The country which comes up with a working fusion process first
will reap huge benefits, sort of the "Holy Grail" of technology. Sounds
outlandish, but the concept of atomic weapons and landing on the moon were
equally odd some years ago. I have no illusions about this being a short
project. It will likely take decades, but it will pay out handsomely in
the long run. In the process, the spin off technology would likely keep
the U.S. far ahead of the rest of the world. It would also encourage our
children to seek the highest level of education possible. To top it off,
having a good primary source of energy like fusion, would leave petroleum
for me to use in my truck, sports car, etc... Unfortunately, it will not
happen any time soon, only a tiny percentage of the population will support
something like this...unless a crisis focuses their attention (WWII for the
atom bomb, and Sputnik/arms race for the moon landing.) My countrymen are
too concerned with the immediate to see the future. Most of them can't
even spell fusion, don't understand the difference between CFC's and
greenhouse gases, fail to understand the real time value of money, and
think "four more years" is a looooong time.

Shawn Clark
e-mail: sd&


From: "Justin Queen">
Subject: turn signal cam
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 18:27:53 -0700

Hey guys, I have a 1986 F150 extended cab, 5.0 F/I. My question is this:
When I bought the truck, the turn signal cam was broken. I replaced it and the new one lasted about a month. I was just wondering if this was a common problem or if it is just faulty installation or bad luck. It is not a tilt column. It is probably faulty installation, but I just wanted to check and see if it was a defect before spending money again.

Thanks for any info.
Justin Queen


Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 19:30:34 EDT
Subject: Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert

DEAR SHAWN: Add into all of your figures on lower consumption to the fact
that GOVERNMENT looses taxes with a reduction in fuel use and you will under
stand that the per gallon tax will be raised to off set the lose the


Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 19:24:07 -0500
From: a&b>
Subject: Re: F250 Diesel

Try this guy, much diesel stuff.. great site

chuck sanborn wrote:

> At 08:46 AM 5/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >Dude, I just acquired a '90 Crew Cab Diesel, and I freakin' LOVE my
> >diesel.!!!!!
> >
> >However I am not sure the E4OD tranny was one of Fords better ideas. I
> >think it was planted to piss us off by General Malfunction.
> Dave,
> If you want to know more about your E4OD go to:
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: with
> the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the
> message.


Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 20:01:39 -0700
From: chuck sanborn>
Subject: Shift lever adjustment

Has anyone with "three on the tree" ever done an adjustment
or replacement of the shift lever or collar? The shop manual is
not very clear/descriptive and I cannot tell what has to come off
other than the steeing wheel and then somehow, the collar that
hold the shift lever.
If anyone has experience with this or knows of a place where I
can get a parts diagram, I sure would appreciate the assistance.
Thank you,
Chuck Sanborn
Torrance, CA
86 F150 300 cu in six banger
FAX 1-310-822-6815


Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:32:01 EDT
Subject: Re: "Grinding" in front brakes

Chuck Biggs writes:

<< .....I have checked the bearings and the nearly new pads several times and
cannot find out what is causing the "grinding" noise when I brake. It
appears to be louder at very slow speeds just when coming to a complete
stop. Any ideas where to look next? >>

Did you turn or replace the rotors when you replaced the pads?
I know it can be hard to describe a noise and give all the details as to the
circumstances a noise occurs, but it sounds typical of a symptom I've
observed a few times on Fords (and other vehicles) shortly after a
''pad-slap'' brake job. The cure is to clean the friction face of the pads
and turn the rotors... or at the very least sanding both sides of the rotors.
Also, the use of silicone sealer is not an accepted practice... use the
anti-squeak compound that comes with the pads or better yet buy a good
quality brake pad that comes with shims. My preference is EIS (sold under
the CarQuest Gold brand) or OEM. Hope this helps.


Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 09:03:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Brakes

Hey folks,
I have an 82 E 350 I have been putting back together. I put new brakes all
around and bled the system but they still feel a bit spongy. One reservoir
was dry when I got the van, so do I need to bleed the master cylinder
separately? Can I bleed it on the van or do I need to take it off and bench
bleed it?


End of 80-96-list Digest V2000 #80
Ford Truck Enthusiasts 80-96 Truck Mailing List

Send posts to

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing
list, send an email to:

with the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of
the message.

Visit Our Web Site:

ENDTAG; } ?>