Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:47:19 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #121
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 121



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
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
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: Exhaust ["C. E. White" ]
Re: Injector Cleaners ["S. Spaulding" ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Ford Motorsports Catalog [Keith Srb ]
Re: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...) ["C. E. White"
RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip [jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 [Bill Funk ]
Re: octane ratings... [Bill Funk ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["Bob Leifer" ]
Differential [Dave Armbruster ]
Spongy Brakes on 86 E-150 Ford Clubwagon [Matthew Miller
re: High Octane gas [Randy Kindler ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #120 [Randy Kindler ]
Another Weird Colorado Gas question [Randy Kindler
Say what? [Jerad Heffner ]
Say what? [Jerad Heffner ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 [Bill Funk ]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:17:24 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: Exhaust
>
Dave Armbruster wrote:
>
> First off, I'm NOT a mechanical engineer (nor an english teacher), but I
> think that one of the main bi-products of the internal combustion engine
> > is carbon monoxide (not carbon dioxide, which other than asphixiation, is
> relatively harmless). CO, on the other hand is poisonous to humans and bad
> for the environment.

A properly tuned engine creates very little CO (even without a Catalytic
> Convertor). Primary reason for Catalytic Convertors is to eliminate
unburned hydro-carbons which help to create smog. There is no doubt that
a catalytic convertor will greatly reduce CO, but this is not the prime
reason for the convertors.

> This is one of the reasons that the calalyst (some
> form of paladium if I remember right), that is used in the catalytic
> > converters that have been mandated on vehicles, chemically reacts the CO to
> into much less harmful H2O and CO2.

It is not possible to chemically convert CO into H2O... well I guess it
is (break the CO down to O and C and add H), but not in this situation.
And I don't think you can get much less harmful that H2O (unless you
have way too much of it).


> The CO2 you could concievably smell as a sweetish kind of smell under the
> right conditions, but the H20 just drips of the tailpipe. So, all cars and
> trucks that have catalytic converters will drip some amount of water from
> the tailpipe, I guess more so the newer the cars, since the emissions have
> been getting tighter steadily (my '97 Ranger has two converters one right
> after another). As the exhaust system heats up, the catalyst must be very
> hot to start the reaction, the water evaporates before it is exhausted.

The H2O is produced as water vapor right from the start. Until the
exhaut system heats-up some of it condenses and drips out the rear (or
holes in the pipes of older cars).

BTW, I am a Mechanical Engineer. I am not an English Teacher so please
forgive me for the spelling.

Ed
>
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:24:54 -0700
From: "S. Spaulding"
Subject: Re: Injector Cleaners

Charles,

Techron seems pretty aggressive, but I don't think anything compares to
cleaning them with a professional cleaning system that connects directly
to the fuel rail.

Steve

Charles A. Biggs wrote:
>
> Are there certain brands of injector cleaners (for adding to the fuel)
> that are better than the others or all they all about the same in
> effectiveness?
>
>
> Chuck Biggs
> mailto:biggs flash.net
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:29:33 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

C. E. White wrote:
>
> selling it in trucks. I think it is related to the original OHV 6 Ford
> started making around 1950. Ford also made a "small block 6" (Falcon 6)
> that was the 144, 170, 200 and 250 I think.

That takes me back. A friend of mine had a Falcon station wagon ('62
year, I think) with the 144 in it. Man, you could get out and push it
faster than that old mill could. Best part was the vacuum operated
wipers: they didn't work if you were accelerating, and in that car, you
were ALWAYS accelerating...slowly, but always!

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin Texas Instruments, Inc.
(972) 480-2345 8505 Forest Lane, MS 8749
email: baldwin ti.com Dallas, TX 75243
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:34:15 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Ford Motorsports Catalog

How does one obtain one of these catalogs?

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:47:22 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...)

Well I don't agree with some of the things you wrote....

> 1) less emissions: If you feel good when you pollute less, high octane
> is a good thing. Lower octane gas has more junk in it that doesn't do
> a whole lot for your engine and comes out as hydrocarbon pollutants.

I don't know of any reason why this would be true in general. There are
some manufacturers (Amoco) who claim that their high test is "cleaner"
that other grades. I don't doubt that this is true, but it is not a
by-product of the higher octane. It is true because of other
manufacturing steps. I believe that there is as much difference between
different batches of unleaded as there is between regular and high test.

> 2) less buildup on your injectors: Dunno 'bout this one, my '96 Renger
> if the first FI vehicle I've ever owned, but it makes sense - less
> gunk and junk, more octane, less gum.

This is not a function of octane. There was a time when certain
Manufacturer's put more of the cleaning agents in high test gas than in
regular (Exxon comes to mind). Now must of the major brands have the
same additive packages in all grades. Texaco and Philips 66 used to
advertise this fact.

> 3) "Runs your engine too hot": well, if you know that for a fact, try
> cooler plugs. After all, if high octane puts your cooling system
> over the edge, somethign else is wrong.

Well this is theoretically possible. I agree that if it pushes you over
the edge you have other problems.

> 4) higher gas milage: Rings true for most, unless you like flooring it
> everywhere, in which case, you'll be putting extra wear on the
> entire vehicle (a more costly scenario than paying a buck or two
> extra at the pump 2 or 3 times a month, so it's another issue
> entirely)

Unless your car has some method of either detecting the octane level of
the gas or detecting spark knock there is no reason to believe that
higher octane gas will improve your gas mileage. In fact higher octane
gas usually has less energy content than regular. For cars that can make
adjustments based on the octane of the fuel, it is possible to improve
gas mileage slightly. There is no way you will increase it enough to
cover the extra cost of the high test fuel. I owned a 1986 Mercury Sable
that had a knock sensor. I tried to detect a difference in gas mileage
between regular and high test. I never could.

> 6) Engine mods: Many types of performance engine mods require high octane gas to function well.

If the mod leads to spark knock higher octance gas may be necessary.

> 7) Tuning of todays engines from the factory is made to work well on the
> lower and lowest grades of gas available. Sometimes, depending
> on the vehicle and it's condition, high octane gas does nothing.

High octane gas can actually cause problems. Most manufacturer's have
released service bulletins warning against using high octane gas. I read
Ford's TSB on this. It listed a bunch of drivability concerns like hard
starting, stalling and hesitation. Step 1 was to ask the customer if
they were using high octane gas. If the customer said yes, the
technician was supposed to tell the customer to switch back to regular
for at least 3 tankfuls to eliminate the problems. The manufacturer can
tume an engine to work better with high test. I think Cadillac does
this.

Ed
>
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:56:18 -0400
From: jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester)
Subject: RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip

A quick look in the 1997 F250/F350 Powertrain/Drivetrain manual shows that
there is no listing for a front locker in any of the models. Both the
10.25" Ford, Dana 60, and Dana 80 rear axles have lockers available. The
10.25" and Dana 60 are of the limited slip type while the Dana 80 is a true
Detroit Locker. Neither the Dana 50 or Dana 60 front axle have front
lockers available from the factory. They are available through the
aftermarket.

Jason



> Someone made a reference to an item that I've been curious about for
> some
> time -- namely that when you order the limited slip option on the
> F350,
> you get both a front & rear limited slip.
>
> I've got a 97 F350 4x4 Crew Cab PowerStroke (5-speed w/manual hubs &
> 3.55
> gears), and I'd love to be able to verify whether or not my stout Dana
> 60
> has a limited slip in it. Anyone know how to check/verify it?

>Hi, Jay...The shop manuals will have the info you want, in the section
>that interprets the VIN.
>While the shop manual set can look expensive, they are probably less
>than 1% of what you paid for that truck, and are a great investment.
>Maybe someone on the list has the manuals, and can tell you what the VIN
>numbers for the axles are for that truck...

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:25:23 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119

> From: Brian Pynn
> Subject: A Hearty Thank You...
>
> To all of you who resonded with incredible speed and clarity to my
> question on axle ratios. A few more months in this mailgroup and I
> feel
> like I'll be able to hold my own at a dinner party of licensed auto
> mechanics. Better than just smiling and nodding.
>
> Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
> because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
>
> right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs
> your
> engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong....

---

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.