return <<< ENDTAG
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 03:50:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digestListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #178
fordtrucks80up-digest Tuesday, October 21 1997 Volume 01 : Number 178
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
In this issue:
Re: Dual tank question ["Bruce A. Ramirez" ]
Re: F-250/F-350 XLT bench seat [FOMOCONUTaol.com]
Re: Re:TIRES ["Lare/Eric" ]
Re: Rough idle in 4.0 ["Lare/Eric" ]
98 3.0 [fwisejuno.com]
F350 w/ two batteries [Steve Field ]
Tornado [Mitch Biarsky ]
Re: TIRES [James Forrest ]
Re: 6.9/7.3 Questions [Ken Miller ]
Gas mileage... [LarryAllaol.com]
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:35:35 -0400
From: "Bruce A. Ramirez"
Subject: Re: Dual tank question
> sorry no help.. but a question.. Why do you feel it so important to
> switch the tanks when the truck is not running? I do it all the time
> and have
> never had any problems...IMHO though I think you just expierienced
> some type
> of relay logic failure in getting the tanks to switch. Maybe never
> John L. Miller
> 96 F-350 4x4
> 68 F-250 4x4
> 92 Mustang
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80uplistservice.net,
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-requestlistservice.net
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
There is no relay logic or computer control involved in switching tanks.
Just standard relays turning off one pump and turning on the other pump.
1991 F-150 4x4 4.9L
1994 E-250 4.9L
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: F-250/F-350 XLT bench seat
I am replying to the list on this subject as well as personally to the
originator... I too am expieriencing problems with this seat. I have a 96
F-350, 4x4 and have only 23,000 very gentle miles on it. I mean "gentle" to
the point that I get geers from my buddies at work. I really take care of
this truck. On with the point, I am seeing a severe degradation of the seats
original firmness and seem to be sitting lower in the seat than I was just a
few short monthes ago. Now I only weight about 190 Lbs. and I do hoist myself
in and out of the truck correctly. One other point which I had presented to
the list members and did not receive much response, my truck is equiped with
the 460 and the block was never painted from the factory. Please if anyone
out there has a '96 with a 460 look at it and tell me if they have the same.
I really want to go at Ford about this, but if all are like this... What can
I do? I am a U.S Marine and it was no small thing for me or anybody in my
opinion to purchase an F-350, these two items are really discouraging.
John L. Miller
96 F-350 4x4
68 F-250 4x4
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:12:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Re:TIRES
> From: Geoffrey Hoffman
> To: fordtrucks80upListService.net
> Subject: Re:TIRES
> Date: Sunday, October 19, 1997 10:10 PM
> At 5:34 PM -0400 10/19/97, jsrusspostoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >Geoffrey ,
> >How do you know what ratio he has ? Most 4.0L 4x4 Rangers have the
> >3:73 gears which is perfect for 32's . I know this for a fact because
> >I have them ! Hell I know guys with explorers that run 3:73 that
> >have 35's .
> hey, i was just saying it is something to look at when you are getting
> bigger tires. most explorers come with the 3.27. the 3.73 is good for
> tires in the 32 range. and explorers with 35's are alright, it just
> probably be a bit better to go with something a little higher. i am not
> saying it is not possible, just 35 inches is a lot of tire.
> i did not know that rangers have the 3.73 stock. i apologize, and like i
> said, i know explorers better than i know rangers.
> see ya...
> Geoffrey Hoffman gch2cornell.edu
> Cornell University http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pobox.com/~hoffy
My '94 Splash Ext. Cab (5 spd man. trans.) came with 3.27's with
235/75R15's stock. My first tire upgrade was to 31x10.5's with the stock
gearing; the truck seemed to lose a little gas mileage and performance
(always downshifting on western PA hills).
I just put a 4" lift, 32x11.5's and 4.10 r&p in the truck; IMHO, this
seems to be the perfect combination as far as final gear ratio goes -
better mileage and performance than even the stock combination and still
doesn't rev all that high at hiway cruising speeds (about 2,200 rpm at just
shy of 65 - plenty fast enough when dodging all these crazy deer).
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 20:16:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Rough idle in 4.0
> From: greg.medertgsa.gov
> To: fordtrucks80upListService.net
> Subject: RE: Rough idle in 4.0
> Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:34 AM
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:00:33 -0400
> From: "Lare/Eric"
> Subject: Rough Idle - Ranger 4.0L
> About 8,000 miles ago (59,000 on the truck currently), I noticed
> idle on my '94 Splash 4.0L was beginning to get a bit rough. At the
> exhaust outlet it almost sounds like a miss of sorts - every two to
> seconds it will sort of 'puff'. At about the same time, the
> gauge begin to cycle from midway to very near the bottom of the
> I took it to the dealership and they told me that this was pretty
> for a truck with this many miles on it that was almost four years
> which I expected them to say.
> Does anyone have any ideas as to what could be causing the rough
> problem, and, could the fluctuating temperature be related, or is it
> just a
> I haven't gotten into this (or these) problems much yet, since they
> seem to affect the performance or mileage of the truck, although
> problems seem to be getting more pronounced. Figured it high time
> diagnose this one before I have a serious problem on my hands.
> Recently, I replaced (as general maintenance) the O2 sensors, PCV,
> plug wires, & air filter.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> Eric S. - '94 Splash 4x4 4.0L
> had a similar problem with my 91 4.0 except that the rough idle and
> temperature readings did not occur at the same time. The
> reading was a bad temp sensor. The rough idle was clogged or dirty
> injectors. I had the injectors professional cleaned where they
> disconnect the fuel line from the fuel rail and run it off a
> pressurized tank with injector cleaner. Cost was around $70. You
> now hardly hear it idling it so smooth. Hope this helps.
> Atlanta, GA
Thanks. I'm gonna find somewhere that performs this method of injector
cleaning this weekend. I'll let y'all know if it clears up the idle.
Figure I'll try the temperature sensor, also.
Eric S. - smithj797asme.org
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:17:02 -0500
Subject: 98 3.0
According to Ford's web site, the 3.0L V6 in the 98 Ranger makes 150hp
5000rpm and 185 lb/ft at 3750 rpm. My 94 3.0 makes 140hp 4800 & 160
lb/ft 3000. I read in some magazine's "preview" (don't remember what
magazine, I didn't buy it), that the only change was a new intake
manifold. I haven't found one in a local dealership yet, has anyone seen
one? If so, did you notice whether the throttle body is integral with the
upper manifold section like the old one (same as used on 3.0's in the
Taurus), or is it removable like the 4.0 & 5.0? I wonder what would be
required for a swap, beyond the manifold itself. The extra 24lb/ft would
be nice, although I'm not crazy about the 750 higher rpm. After all, this
is a truck we're talking about here.
Speaking of throttle bodies, I finally got around to measuring mine the
other day, and it is a "huge" (yeah, right) 50mm in diameter. Does anyone
know what the TB on a 4.0 measures? I have these strange thoughts about
putting together my own upper manifold with longer runners.
The MAF sensor measures 64mm on the engine side, and 66 on the air filter
side. I was surprised by this, as I believe that the 4.0 (at least in the
Explorer) has a 60 mm MAF. Does anyone know for certain? Have I used the
wrong technique in measuring the meter? I used inside dividers and set
them on a scale, so I'm confident about the accuracy of my measurements.
One last question: does anyone know what the 3.0 injectors are rated in
lb/hr? Are they the same basic injector as used on other Ford fuel
injected engines (4.0, 5.0, etc)?
Thanks for your help,
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:32:22 -0400
From: Steve Field
Subject: F350 w/ two batteries
I have a friend with an F350/PowerStroke (Deisel) Crew Cab who is
having trouble figuring out how to jump-start another vehicle given the t=
battery setup. (Doesn't seem to be anything in the manual and he's not
heard back from Customer support at his dealership.)
The questions are: Does anyone know the proper hookup for jumping? Wil=
one of those Cigarette-Lighter to C-L hookups work? Any worries on the
current running down the line to the target battery?
Any other info, tips, or caveats would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance,
+ Steve Field 20-Oct-1997 18:38:03 PT
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:26:35 -0400
From: Mitch Biarsky
Has anyone had any experience with the Tornado air management system?
The following article was on the newswire:
SANTA FE SPRINGS, Calif.--(AutomotiveWire)--Oct. 13, 1997--
New Automotive Device Will Improve MPG!
Got a gas-guzzler in the garage?
Check out the TORNADO.
The aftermarket long ago figured out that if they could just make things
more efficient (intake runners, air filters, exhaust systems), there
always be a place to set up shop. One such company that is finding a
niche in the "small-but-significant-performance-gain" arena is TORNADO
According to an article in Four Wheeler Magazine and "ShadeTree
on TNN, "TORNADO is an air channeling tool that creates a swirling
in the air, allowing the air to move faster and more efficiently by
continuously whirling air around corners and bends -- imagine a
mini-tornado on its side moving through the intakes. It causes better
atomization, resulting in an increase of gas mileage anywhere from 7 to
24%. These figures are confirmed by road testing performed at an
lab licensed by the EPA. The product is easy to install -- 2 to 5
usually -- requires no maintenance, is environmentally friendly and is
affordable addition to most cars and light trucks."
Test Vehicle Base MPG w/TORNADO % Change
'93 Dodge Caravan 6/3.0 19.84 22.49 +13.3
'86 Nissan Maxima 6/3.0 25.34 31.44 +24.0
'85 Olds 98 6/3.8 27.52 33.63 +22.0
'69 Camaro 8/5.7 350 16.35 17.60 +7.60
(EPA Licensed Emission Laboratory)
'93 Ford Taurus HC CO
City Cycle Baseline 0.012 0.381
w/TORNADO -0.054 0.248
% Change -105.5% -34.90
Highway Cycle Baseline 0.019 0.262
w/TORNADO 0.003 0.201
% Change -84% -23%
(EPA Licensed Emission Laboratory)
Test Vehicle HP Base HP w/TORNADO HP Change
'84 Ford 5.0 140 4500 153 4500 +13
'84 Volvo 4/2.1 120 4500 130 4500 +10
'94 Ford 4/2.3 100 4000 104 4000 + 4
'86 Chevy 8/307 143 4500 155 4500 +12
(Automotive Technology Dept., Saddleback College, Mission Viejo,
TORNADO was recommended to the California BAR (Bureau of Automotive
in Sacramento as one of the RETROFIT devices with potential benefits to
Ron Bell is the professor of automotive technology at Saddleback
He said, "Students in my advanced EFI class this past semester put the
TORNADO on a '94 Chevy Tahoe with a 350 TBI engine. I was skeptical, but
test after test showed an increased MPG of 14.5 up from 11. They have
noticed no flat spot around 35-40 MPH and improved acceleration."
TORNADO ($69.98) is simple to install, comes with a 30-day money-back
guarantee & lifetime warranty, works with most cars, light trucks and
? Business Wire. All rights reserved.
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:18:23 -0500
> From: Jake Morvant
> Subject: 4 cylinder Ranger needs more h.p.
> I own a 1994 Ranger with a 2.3L I-4 engine and I need more h.p.! I don't
> want to spend a lot of money on modifications (no more than $100 or so) and
> I would like to increase power by about 10 h.p.
> Buying a K&N air filter or a Tornado air management system have been
> suggested. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:40:10 -0500
From: James Forrest
Subject: Re: TIRES
i have a 96 ranger 4x4, and i had 31x10.50 goodyear tires mounted on
American Racing type 39 15x7 wheels, with normal backspacing. I had no
problems with tires rubbing, etc. I don't think i would go any higher.
I am assuming you have the 3.73 gears, which are good for turning them.
You could go up to a 32 but you would need a body or suspension lift if
you didn't want to tear apart your fenders.
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:37:35
From: Ken Miller
Subject: Re: 6.9/7.3 Questions
Good start Allen on the info. Here is some more with a bit more detail.
In general terms, the same Navistar 7.3L Diesel engine was used between
1987~88 to 1995. During the latter part of that time period, there was a
Turbo option. The Power Stroke, introduced in 1995, had a significant
makeover. The most significant change being that a COMPUTER runs the
engine. The older had no electronics running it. The second biggest
change was the switch from one injector pump supplying fuel to the
injectors, in a PRE-combustion chamber; to, a HEUI injection system (a much
better and more efficient system) that injects the fuel directly into the
combustion chambers. A Turbocharger is Stock.
The performance difference between a Power Stroke, and a pre 1995 model is
like night in day.
The 1998 (or 1999 depending on what dealer you talk to) will be
intercooled. Giving even more power, and effiency when you don't have your
foot in it.
My two cents worth.
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 03:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Gas mileage...
I'm looking to improve the gas mileage on my F-250 351W. I have a K&N filter
charger on it and I'm looking to add headers at a later time. I was
basically looking at adding a high performance coil and 8.8 Accel plug wires,
but I was told at SuperShops that the engine was designed to burn at 100%
already. Now I know that this couldn't be true, but I am wondering what good
the coil/ignition system would do for my gas mileage. I don't really want to
spend more than about 200 bucks on the coil/ignition system. I know I can
get a cleaner and more thurough burn with this, but I am kinda wondering why
this guy told me not to bother. BTW, he tried to sell me a performance chip
and then backed down when I told him I wanted fuel economy. He said I would
have to sacrifice gas mileage for performance. This I understand, but I'm
looking to burn it all in the fire for eficiency and not waste anything.
Could someone clarify what that guy talked me out of? I would really
End of fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #178
Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com