return <<< ENDTAG
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:50:16 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digestListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #261
fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, December 13 1997 Volume 01 : Number 261
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: Gibson & etc. for 351 [David McDonald ]
RE:Turbo vs. Supercharger ["Steve Brown" ]
[none] [Tim Ake ]
Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger [Thom Cheney ]
Re: [Thom Cheney ]
Re: 4 X 4 Service [Thom Cheney ]
RE: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #259 [Michael Wray ]
Re: blown hub?; '97 x-change; Q! [BGroomsJX ]
FYI - 1999 info - plus some towing info [John Yee ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #258 ["Randy Kindler"
f150 horsepower [yhtlinessurfari.net]
Re: new subscriber-- 92 F150 Supercab [Dc9315 ]
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 06:50:40 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Re: Gibson & etc. for 351
Gary Gadwa wrote:
> There's more but don't want to totally Bore anybody.
> GARY GADWA
> 1990 F-250 4x4 Supercab 351 modified
> 1996 Explorer
> 1931 VictoriaIt wasn't boring... thanks much for your ideas!
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:30:26 -0600
From: "Steve Brown"
Subject: RE:Turbo vs. Supercharger
> From: Geoffrey Hoffman
> Subject: Re:Turbo vs. Supercharger
> >Is it true there is a difference between Turbo's and Supercharger's?
> >I heard a charger is belt driven, and a turbo is driven via exhaust gas
> >If so what are the pro/con's of each?
> >So the PS diesel is a Turbo, driven by the exhaust pressure.
> well, they both _roughly_ do the same thing, just have different ways of
> doing it. they both compress air intake, but you are right on how they
> work. superchargers run off the belt, and turbo chargers run off the
> exhaust. what this means is that superchargers react pretty much
> instantly, can boost torque, and acceleration, but may put more
> on the engine. turbo chargers on the other hand take a moment to react,
> the exhaust builds up, but it is sometimes thought of getting something
> nothing: you get more power at pretty much no cost. turbos are better
> mileage and efficiency. you will find turbos in more and more cars
> nowadays. rarely do you find superchargers that aren't aftermarket.
Turbo's are typically more efficient than Superchargers (blowers). (Turbo's
original name is Turbo Supercharger).
Roots type blowers (twin lobe) are least efficient. Centrifugal blowers
are more efficient. Lysholm twin screw blowers are extremely efficient
also. (Heat the air less & gain more power for the engine).
However, fewer cars will be turbo'd from the factory because of emissions:
Catalytic converters do not work until they reach a certain temperature
(light-off temp). Turbo's use exhaust gas heat to function...so they
"soak" up the initial heat that would normally light off the catalytic
converter. Witness the Toyota MR2....in 1995 (its last year), the turbo
model wasn't sold in a few states because it couldn't pass emissions.
Manufacturers are looking for better turbo systems (Saab, etc) that only
run off of one bank of cylinders...lotta work to get the timing, valve
system, etc. to work right...while still sending hot gases to the catalytic
converter quickly. Mazda gave up & used a factory supercharger in the
Millenia S. According to some car rags, superchargers will be used more
If you're looking to do your own kit...Superchargers are MUCH easier to
install than a Turbo.
Diesel engines are extremely efficient, but desperately need the addition
of a turbo to get power out of 'em. Then you've got a real TORQUE
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:08:40 -0700
From: Tim Ake
Hello to my Ford Family out there. I've read a lot here the past =
several weeks, and I need some help. Last January, I bought a '94 XL =
4X4, std. cab, 5 spd manual, with about 39K miles. It's in really good =
shape, and is the newest Ranger I've bought in many years. =
Unfortunately, in order to get the great deal I did, it meant buying a =
truck with a 2.3L 4cyl motor.
Here's my dilemma: I love this truck, but I need more power. Around =
town and on the highway, it is fine, adequate starting power, maintains =
good speeds and runs well for a smaller engine. But when I get it on =
any serious incline, it dogs. On I-70 west of Denver at altitude I get =
passed by 18-wheel rigs while I strain for every "R" of rpm available. =
At about 47mph in fourth rpm falls like a brick, but in third it gets to =
about 52mph and the engine wails like a banshee at around 4800rpm.=20
How can I get the most power for the least expense from this motor? My =
disposable income for any projects on this will be limited, but I've =
gotta do something. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. =
I've already gutted the air muffler, but that's about it. I saw no =
improvements from that operation.
Thanks for your help,
P.S. In response to the tailgate debate, I've seen no significant =
difference between running with the gate on or off - I get 20mpg either =
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:53:21 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger
Tyler Abbott wrote:
> Is it true there is a difference between Turbo's and Supercharger's?
> I heard a charger is belt driven, and a turbo is driven via exhaust gas
> If so what are the pro/con's of each?
> So the PS diesel is a Turbo, driven by the exhaust pressure.
Supercharger is driven by belt. The big pro is that you have the
additional power at any time. A turbo is driven by the exhaust gases
from your engine. They turn an impeller and then the process is
basically the same as the supercharger. Turbo's big problem is that
you have to get the revs up on your engine before it kicks in (they
call this turbo lag). On some vehicles this is more noticeable than
others. Another problem with turbo is the heat problem. Since it is
driven by heated exhaust gases, the turbo itself gets quite warm & then
you are introducing warmer air to your engine. This has been cured by
adding an intercooler. My 1980 turbo mustang was absolutely blown away
by the "new" (then) SVO mustangs. Same 2.3 motor, but they added an
intercooler. In a truck, you want more power in the low range, so the
supercharger seems to have a bigger following. I guess the downside to
supercharger is that since it is attached by belt, it is scavenging hp
off the engine at all times. The list is also discussing the merits of
price per hp gain on this modification. Both are quite expensive & we
will probably soon get to the point of actually comparing cost of
super/turbo vs. engine swap.
Hope this helps....
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:21:12 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Tim Ake wrote:
> Hello to my Ford Family out there. I've read a lot here the past several weeks, and I need some help. Last January, I bought a '94 XL 4X4, std. cab, 5 spd manual, with about 39K miles. It's in really good shape, and is the newest Ranger I've bought in many years. Unfortunately, in order to get the great deal I did, it meant buying a truck with a 2.3L 4cyl motor.
> Here's my dilemma: I love this truck, but I need more power. Around town and on the highway, it is fine, adequate starting power, maintains good speeds and runs well for a smaller engine. But when I get it on any serious incline, it dogs. On I-70 west of Denver at altitude I get passed by 18-wheel rigs while I strain for every "R" of rpm available. At about 47mph in fourth rpm falls like a brick, but in third it gets to about 52mph and the engine wails like a banshee at around 4800rpm.
> How can I get the most power for the least expense from this motor? My disposable income for any projects on this will be limited, but I've gotta do something. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. I've already gutted the air muffler, but that's about it. I saw no improvements from that operation.
sorry dude, you get what you pay for. It probably is a great truck
otherwise! There are some things you can do to get the torque & hp up.
Look into a new freeflowing exhaust system. I'm not sure if there is a
throttle body conversion for the 2.3. You might end up putting in a new
"chip" as well. I would do all those modifications. Beyond that, you
will be doing a new cam, or maybe a turbo conversion. At that point, I
would be looking at engine swaps. The sky's the limit!!
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 07:59:52 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: 4 X 4 Service
> I own a '94 Ranger, std cab, 4 liter V6, 4 X 4. I have 32,000 miles, mostly
> city driving, of which about 200 are 4 wheel drive (carefully on dirt roads).
> I read recently that there are problems with vehicles like mine and that a
> special service is required in order to prevent problems.
> Given the history of my vehicle, do I need such a service, and if so, should
> it be done by a Ford dealer or a 4 X 4 specialty shop?
> Thanks, RNSRobert
What, exactly have you been told? I believe my Ranger was built to be
driven offroad, onroad, or wherever the he** else I want to take it.
That's why I paid that extra money for all the 4X4 equipment. I will
take better care of the drivetrain (as in, frequent oil changes, lube &
cleaning), but beyond that, if this rig does not perform without
breaking under these circumstances, Ford will have one very loud and
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:46:17 -0800
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #259
I too had the same questions you had. I wanted to have a set of
winter tires (mudders) and normal tires. I also wanted the 33x12.50
size. What I ended up doing was getting the cheap white spoke wheels
(since I was not going for looks) in a 16.5" size. They cost about
$45 each. Then I was able to get my 33x12.50x16 tires. They look
great on my black '86 F250 HD.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:25:33 EST
Subject: Re: blown hub?; '97 x-change; Q!
The 1998 Ranger 3.0L has a 20% (supposadly) increase in TQ, but it also has 2
less HP than in 1997. I test drove a 4x2 with a auto trans and a 3.0L engine
and it was a dog. I didnt notice any diffrence in the power. Ofcourse, it all
depends on if you have a manual or a auto trans. The 3.0L 98' motor is
nicknamed the "Vulcan", why I dont know.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:02:34 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: FYI - 1999 info - plus some towing info
ripped off of rec.outdoor.rv
There's some towing information, plus a lot of "older" information.
==== cut here ========
New Ford F series specs
10 Dec 1997 23:18:13 GMT
The new 98/99 F250/350/450/550 Ford F Series trucks were announced at the
Louisville RV trade show last week. I thought everyone might like to know what
A quick rundown of the new features:
1. A distinct "Dodgeish" look to the front grill, but generally not as radical
as the Dodge.
2. A new automatic transmission, model no. 4R100 for the gas and diesel.
3. A six speed manual transmission standard for the diesel.
4. Triton 5.4L is the standard V8
5. Triton 6.8L V-10 optional engine.
6. A new 7.3L Powerstoke featuring an intercooler and 235 hp 2700 rpm and
500 ft-lbs torque 1600 RPM
7. The 450/550 with their increased towing capacity are only available from
Ford as a chassis/cab combination. No pickup bed. The aftermarket will have to
supply the bed.
8. The 450/550 is only available with the regular cab or the crew cab. No
9. Production starts Jan.5, 1998.
10. No pricing available yet.
11. The maximum loaded trailer weight for the gas/standard transmission is
14,800 lbs for the regular cab and 14,200 for the crew cab on the F450. The
automatic is 4,000 lbs higher.
12. The maximum loaded trailer weight for the diesel (automatic and standard)
is 18,300 for the regular cab and 17,700 for the crew cab on the F450.
13. The 550 is 100 lbs. less.
14. The 450 and 550 have GCWR of 22,000 lbs. on the gas/manual transmission
and 26,000 lbs on the gas automatic and the diesel automatic and manual.
No pricing information yet.
If you have any further questions I will try to answer them.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:53:52 -0700
From: "Randy Kindler"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #258
> I also have been looking into changing my bench seat to Captains
> Chairs or a newer more comfortable 60/40 seat... Anyone have any
> input on this?? I have an '86 F250 Supercab.
>I've seen almost new seats in some of the accessory houses in the Denver
area for reasonable prices. People trade them in on fancy seats. I looked
at a seat from FlexSteel that fit the stock mounting brackets. Looked very
nice, but was $900.
> Does anyone know how to get the knobs off the end of the 5-speeds
> Is it pressed on? Do you need a special tool to get it off? If its
> on - does anyone know the size of the press fit?
> Its pressed on. I couldn't get mine off, until one day, I shifted from
1st to 2nd and it came off in my hand. Now it won't stay on.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 20:38:13
Subject: f150 horsepower
will try again with proper info, does anyone know the factory HP rating for
an 88 F150 with a 302 automatic, SEFI, tappet cam?
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:44:21 EST
Subject: Re: new subscriber-- 92 F150 Supercab
concerning fuel injector cleaning, there is a fuel shop in nashville tn. that
cleans and flow tests efi injectors.
End of fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #261
Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com