Subject: perf-list-digest V2 #236
Precedence: bulk

perf-list-digest Wednesday, September 15 1999 Volume 02 : Number 236

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
In this issue:

FTE Perf - Trans oils in crankcase
Re: FTE Perf - Trans oils in crankcase
RE: FTE Perf - Brand loyalty
FTE Perf - re: Wankewl



Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:47:52 -0400
Subject: FTE Perf - Trans oils in crankcase

For you folks discussing this thread I have to put in my $.02 worth.
I've been using trans fluid in the crankcase for years. Litterally. I'm not
afraid to put a quart in the crankcase and leave it for 1000 miles. Been there
- - Done that - many times. M*PARS are terrible for lifter clatter if you use to
thick of an oil (heavy weight). Lots of folks have come to me over the years
with old M*PARS that have lifters clacking and I routinely add a quart of trans
fluid. I nearly always use the Dexron III, now but have been doing it longer
than Dexron has been available, so the others work, maybe not as good, but they
work. I tell them to use a lighter weight oil and they doubt me - always - but
it works, most of the time. On all other vehicles most of the time when lifters
clatter it is because of low oil pressure, so a thicker oil is needed. Took me
a while to get used to the two very different solutions to the same symptoms in
different manufactuers engines. Transmission fluid works very well to free
stuck lifters.

Just had to have my say.

Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:28:57 EDT
From: "Gerald Ash"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Trans oils in crankcase

Hey Azie,

When we(my wife and I) just got this 99 Grand Marquis the dealer said use
5-30 motor oil. Well I had to ask the service manager why the light weight
oil? His reply was,"The thinner the oil the faster the oil gets back to the
pan thus not staying on the valve covers, bottom of the intake, or anywhere
else that is cooler than the core of the engine thus allowing less time to
sludge up the inside." Sounds good and lifters work better the thinner the
oil. If FoMoCo says that it's good enough for me. The service manager also
said," run it in your older engines also as with newer oils and more
education on the properties of oils that all internal combustion engines
will benifit. Now if it's worn out it will not replace the rings or
bearings but the thicker oil will prolong the death." Then my last question
to him was this. Does FoMoCo make a synthetic oil or recommend or
discourage the use of it? With a smile he said,"We just had a class on that
one, No FoMoCo doesn't have a can around synthetic oils they only ask that
the first 3000 to 5000 miles on there engine be with regular, low ash oil to
break in the engine, then if you want FoMoCo says it will be fine. To keep
there service price on there vehicles reasonable they can't say use it but
the warrenty remains good if you use an oil like Mobile 1 and the engine
should last longer and run cleaner."
Back on the topic now.

Sure the earlybird gets the worm,
but the 2nd rat gets the cheese.


1978 F-150 390/C6
1979 Ranchero 429/C6
1999 Mercury Grand Marquis 4.6L/AOD-4

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:51:57 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Brand loyalty

Well said Tom.


- ----------
From: Tom Ewing[]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Brand loyalty

It seems to me that "brand loyalty" doesn't exclude the possbility
of criticizing and expecting that brand to do better.

snippage of good stuff

. It needs to know where and when its customers feel
that it could do better. As a Ford fan I'm not threatened by
criticisms of Ford.

>I believe this list is built on brand loyalty,hence the name

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:49:42 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: FTE Perf - re: Wankewl

Ring seal was always a problem with Wankel engines. Seals do not last as
long as piston engines' compression rings under normal service. Although
mazda "fixed" the problem mostly, it is still a concern. chamber "shape"
is difficult to seal. also, refinishing the "cylinder" is not an easy task
- - the reason i think that rebuilds are so expensive, that and the low
volume production of them and their repair parts.

of course, still good engines when in their element. Ford owns more than
half of Mazda IIRC.


- --------------------
The Wankel WAS available commercially in Mazda's. Ford owned (and owns) a
big chunk of them, but the Wankel never made it into a Ford chassis.
Despite the mechanical simplicity, rebuilding the engine in an RX-7 isn't
supposed to be a cheap or simple proposition, but this may just be because
it's still a very unusual engine.

In any case, the Wankel's advantages (in the RX-7 at least) are high revs
and wide power band, but not killer torque at low RPM's which is what
people want in trucks.
Tom Teixeira

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


End of perf-list-digest V2 #236

+--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance ----------------+
| Send posts to, |
| List removal information is on the web site. |
+---------- Visit Our Web Site: ----------+ ENDTAG; } ?>