On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:38:06 -0500, Boris Mohar
wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:46:17 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

In my plan to get out of consumer debt,

Volvo 240 or 740. For maintenance help see www.turbobricks,com


Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca

void _-void-_ in the obvious place


The 240 bricks, were EXCELLENT cars. Ive owned several of them. And you
can get them cheap.

Two issues...trannys tended to go, but are easily and cheaply
replaceable from the wrecking yard.

Pre 1987, Volvo used a special "green" environmentally safe insulation
compound on their wiring harnesses. In hot conditions, such as where I
live in the desert, the insulation turned to dust. Most
California/Arizona etc Volvos will eventually have wiring problems in
the engine compartment. When you strip off the loom wrapping..dust falls
out leaving nice shiney bare wires touching each other. The quick fix is
a $150 aftermarket wiring loom (google) and they only take an hour or so
to install..maybe two. Put the new one in so it matches the old one,
then simply unplug stuff and plug it into the new loom.

In not aware of this issue in the North East or midwest. Again google is
your friend.

But the basic car is excellent, good mileage, tough, designed for snow
driving, easy to service and maintain and there are lots of parts
available.

A lot of the volvos you find in the wrecking yard were bought new by mom
and dad, and when they upgraded to a new Volvo, they gave Jr. the old
one, and he tried to drive it like a Cobra. A 4 banger just isnt up to
it..and though the engines held up, the tranny swollowed its ass.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

I bought the 88 Ford F-150 with the inline 6 cyl, 4.9L, 300 Cu In engine and
M5OD transmission. Runs good but has a hydraulic clutch that was out of
fluid.

There is air in the clutch hydraulic system now and the clutch pedal had to
be pumped up several strokes before it would disengage the clutch. The
truck runs and drives fine once the clutch got pumped up and they took $100
off because of the clutch problem, I bought the truck for $700. I have a
hand vacuum pump and I'm planning to connect to the clutch bleed and see if
I can remove the air from the slave cylinder with it.

Anybody here dealt with the Ford hydraulic clutches? I'm wondering what the
worst case cost to have this repaired is. I'm guessing the concentric slave
cylinder has to have the transmission removed to replace it. I don't want
to put a lot of money in this truck because it is old, not worth much, and
has no air conditioning but yet if I can drive it 7 or 8 months per year it
could save many miles on a more valuable car and give me something to drive
while having another vehicle serviced.

RogerN

I saw an ad for a 4 cyl Ranger with 179K miles on it. Are you aware of how
long the 4 cylinder engines typically last? It's a 1997 and they are asking
$2995 for it. Looks pretty good if it has much life left in it.

RogerN


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:07:30 -0600, "RogerN" wrote:

1994 was the year Ford and Mazda went into partnership making the
Ranger series. Prior to that..they were the Courier (spit) and I
think another model. Mazda plants turn out the Rangers here in the
US. New Jersey IRRC

The Mazda trucks are identical to the Rangers, the only thing
different is the emblem on the front grill and the owners manual in
the glove box.

The Mazda trucks are the B2300 (2.3 liter engine), B3000 (3.0) and the
B4000 (4.0 liter)

The 3.0 engine is a V6 (as is the 4.0), and has gone into many Ford
and Mazda vehicles besides trucks. The Ford Taurus had a sidways
mounted 3.0. The only difference was the water pump housing and the
intake manifold.

That 3.0 in a Ranger/Mazda, is well known for going 300,000 miles
with few problems and the trucks themselves are extremely well made
and rugged. Ive no experience with the 4x4s. Several friends have the
4.0 engines in their 4x4s and have said they like them.

The key is post 1994.

Gunner


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:21:44 -0800, Jon Anderson
wrote:

Why not buy a 1994 or later Ford Ranger with the 3.0 in it and less than
150k on the odo.

It will go at least another 150k with minimal problems if you change the
oil and antifreeze on a regular basis.

Get the extended cab and put a shell on it.

About 19-21 mpg, street or hiway

Gunner, with one in the drive way with 440,000 miles on it. It now needs
an engine. Still runs, but sounds like ****.



"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of
Spotsylvania

I saw an ad for a 1992 Ranger for $1250, are the pre 94 models good? *If I
could save that much money I could afford to put some $$$ into the
mechanicals if needed.

1994 was the year Ford and Mazda went into partnership making the
Ranger series. *Prior to that..they were the Courier (spit) and I
think another model. *Mazda plants turn out the Rangers here in the
US. New Jersey IRRC

The courier to ranger change was in '84, I think. My first ranger was
an '85, with a 2.8. Great little truck, good on gas and peppy*, great
for city traffic since it looked like heck and no-one would mess with
it. Very rugged. One potential problem with these was cracking at
the top of the a-pillars, can be easily confused with a windshield
leak. * Last year with the carb, which tended to ice up, so I bolted
the air cleaner bypass to permanently draw from the heat riser, seemed
to fix it...then it was peppy. One advantage to the older generation
is that there are ton of aftermarket body parts for them, since they
are cheap and common they get used as a platform for further
modification...

94 was the start of the more rounded body (wife had a Mazda). '96 was
the start of the OBDII and had an interior redesign (my current
truck). Heater cores are easier to replace on 94, just remove a
panel, dash has to get pulled on a 96. The OBDII is easier to
diagnose, and means I don't have to put the truck on a treadmill to
pass emissions...

The Mazda trucks are identical to the Rangers, the only thing
different is the emblem on the front grill and the owners manual in
the glove box.

Well, there is one other difference: Ford used galvanized rear
quarter panels, Mazda didn't. If you're anywhere near the Rust Belt,
this can make a big difference. It's one of the reasons why the
wife's Mazda got taken off the road...a friend said you could see this
difference between the older rangers and Mazdas even in Texas, which
most don't think of as Rust Belt. I don't know if this holds true for
the newer ones or not.

Several friends have the 4.0 engines in their 4x4s and have said they like them.

The 4.0 in the wife's truck was a fuel hog, and knocked on anything
less than Hitest. I understand that this motor can carbon up, which
can cause this, and that there is a way to clean it out with a dealer
water injection kit, but never tried it. Great motor for towing,
though.

About 19-21 mpg, street or hiway

23 here with a 2.3 manual regular cab and cap. 25 if I go easy on the
go pedal or put an extra 5psi in the tires. If you have to haul a lot
of stuff, a trailer will get you better mileage than a roof rack.

Another thing to check if you're in the rust belt: the brackets and
shackles for the rear springs. Every one of these trucks I've owned
has had to have at least one replaced. Not too bad a repair if you
have access to a minigrinder and an air hammer. Details on request.

--Glenn Lyford

" wrote in
:

I saw an ad for a 1992 Ranger for $1250, are the pre 94 models good?
*
If I
could save that much money I could afford to put some $$$ into the
mechanicals if needed.

1994 was the year Ford and Mazda went into partnership making the
Ranger series. *Prior to that..they were the Courier (spit) and I
think another model. *Mazda plants turn out the Rangers here in the
US. New Jersey IRRC

The courier to ranger change was in '84, I think. My first ranger was
an '85, with a 2.8. Great little truck, good on gas and peppy*, great
for city traffic since it looked like heck and no-one would mess with
it. Very rugged. One potential problem with these was cracking at
the top of the a-pillars, can be easily confused with a windshield
leak. * Last year with the carb, which tended to ice up, so I bolted
the air cleaner bypass to permanently draw from the heat riser, seemed
to fix it...then it was peppy. One advantage to the older generation
is that there are ton of aftermarket body parts for them, since they
are cheap and common they get used as a platform for further
modification...

94 was the start of the more rounded body (wife had a Mazda). '96 was
the start of the OBDII and had an interior redesign (my current
truck). Heater cores are easier to replace on 94, just remove a
panel, dash has to get pulled on a 96. The OBDII is easier to
diagnose, and means I don't have to put the truck on a treadmill to
pass emissions...

The Mazda trucks are identical to the Rangers, the only thing
different is the emblem on the front grill and the owners manual in
the glove box.

Well, there is one other difference: Ford used galvanized rear
quarter panels, Mazda didn't. If you're anywhere near the Rust Belt,
this can make a big difference. It's one of the reasons why the
wife's Mazda got taken off the road...a friend said you could see this
difference between the older rangers and Mazdas even in Texas, which
most don't think of as Rust Belt. I don't know if this holds true for
the newer ones or not.

Trucks that go to the beach - we have a LOT of beach - and don't get
washed off afterwards collect rust easily.

Those in North Texas get subjected to road "salt" in the Winter, too.


Several friends have the 4.0 engines in their 4x4s and have said they
lik
e them.

The 4.0 in the wife's truck was a fuel hog, and knocked on anything
less than Hitest. I understand that this motor can carbon up, which
can cause this, and that there is a way to clean it out with a dealer
water injection kit, but never tried it. Great motor for towing,
though.

A simple, DIY, carbon removal process that you may wish to try: run it in
Second for a couple of days. The high RPMs will "burn out" the Carbon
from the cylinders, valves & pistons. [I'd once had the proverbial 10-
year-old "owned by a little old lady that only drove it to church and the
grocery store and never went over 30 MPH" cars. (That thing was so
heavily carboned up that the engine would nearly shake out of the engine
compartment at 45 MPH when I got it.) I used this approach and it worked
very well. grin]


About 19-21 mpg, street or hiway

23 here with a 2.3 manual regular cab and cap. 25 if I go easy on the
go pedal or put an extra 5psi in the tires. If you have to haul a lot
of stuff, a trailer will get you better mileage than a roof rack.

Another thing to check if you're in the rust belt: the brackets and
shackles for the rear springs. Every one of these trucks I've owned
has had to have at least one replaced. Not too bad a repair if you
have access to a minigrinder and an air hammer. Details on request.

--Glenn Lyford

A simple, DIY, carbon removal process that you may wish to try: run it in
Second for a couple of days. The high RPMs will "burn out" the Carbon
from the cylinders, valves & pistons. [I'd once had the proverbial 10-
year-old "owned by a little old lady that only drove it to church and the
grocery store and never went over 30 MPH" cars. (That thing was so
heavily carboned up that the engine would nearly shake out of the engine
compartment at 45 MPH when I got it.) I used this approach and it worked
very well. grin]

Growing up, we inherited a '72 Valiant from someone who lived about 5
miles from work and never let it warm up. My brother decided to do a
rebuild on it--when he pulled the head the valves looked like Tootsie
Roll Pops. Once the new chrome rings finally seated, it turned into a
very nice car...
--Glenn Lyford

On 10 Dec 2008 03:29:01 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:


The 4.0 in the wife's truck was a fuel hog, and knocked on anything
less than Hitest. I understand that this motor can carbon up, which
can cause this, and that there is a way to clean it out with a dealer
water injection kit, but never tried it. Great motor for towing,
though.

A simple, DIY, carbon removal process that you may wish to try: run it in
Second for a couple of days. The high RPMs will "burn out" the Carbon
from the cylinders, valves & pistons. [I'd once had the proverbial 10-
year-old "owned by a little old lady that only drove it to church and the
grocery store and never went over 30 MPH" cars. (That thing was so
heavily carboned up that the engine would nearly shake out of the engine
compartment at 45 MPH when I got it.) I used this approach and it worked
very well. grin]


Simply take a spray bottle, plant mister, the usual, and as you gently
rev the engine...spray tap water down the carby. Pretty good stream
of it. Ive used a coffee can with a 1/4" hose to simply run water
down the carby. Run water until engine starts to sputter, stop water
for a bit until engine revs come back, wait a bit, run water again.

Do this OUTSIDE!

The water turns to steam, softening and then blasting the carbon out
of the engine. Makes a hell of a cloud of carbon belching out of the
exhaust pipe. It also removes the carbon from the exhaust system..so
it can get really messy.

I dont have a clue as to what it does to the cat converter. Most of
the engines Ive done this to didnt have one.

YMMV!

Gunner

At Webpixonline, we specialize in dynamic Website development and web
design.
We design web sites for small businesses, large corporations, non-
profit orgranizations

" wrote in
:

A simple, DIY, carbon removal process that you may wish to try: run
it in Second for a couple of days. The high RPMs will "burn out" the
Carbon from the cylinders, valves & pistons. [I'd once had the
proverbial 10- year-old "owned by a little old lady that only drove
it to church and the grocery store and never went over 30 MPH" cars.
(That thing was so heavily carboned up that the engine would nearly
shake out of the engine compartment at 45 MPH when I got it.) I used
this approach and it worked very well. grin]

Growing up, we inherited a '72 Valiant from someone who lived about 5
miles from work and never let it warm up. My brother decided to do a
rebuild on it--when he pulled the head the valves looked like Tootsie
Roll Pops. Once the new chrome rings finally seated, it turned into a
very nice car...
--Glenn Lyford


The "Slant Six" was one of the two best engines that Chrysler ever built.

FWIW, the local PD used Valiants with "Slant Sixes" because of their
accelleration.

On 11 Dec 2008 07:03:02 GMT, "RAM³"
wrote:

" wrote in
:

A simple, DIY, carbon removal process that you may wish to try: run
it in Second for a couple of days. The high RPMs will "burn out" the
Carbon from the cylinders, valves & pistons. [I'd once had the
proverbial 10- year-old "owned by a little old lady that only drove
it to church and the grocery store and never went over 30 MPH" cars.
(That thing was so heavily carboned up that the engine would nearly
shake out of the engine compartment at 45 MPH when I got it.) I used
this approach and it worked very well. grin]

Growing up, we inherited a '72 Valiant from someone who lived about 5
miles from work and never let it warm up. My brother decided to do a
rebuild on it--when he pulled the head the valves looked like Tootsie
Roll Pops. Once the new chrome rings finally seated, it turned into a
very nice car...
--Glenn Lyford


The "Slant Six" was one of the two best engines that Chrysler ever built.

FWIW, the local PD used Valiants with "Slant Sixes" because of their
accelleration.


206 HP to the rear wheels on a '63 170 incher - with automatic tranny.
That baby could really scamper after it hit 30.
60 in low, 90 in second and over the top of the speedo in third (6000
RPM plus)
And no, it wasn't stock - and no, there were no expensive bolt-ons.