1993 F-150 Flare Side

[DerekTheGreat]

The recall was unplugging that wire to force it into V8 mode. It kept the EFI.

I dont believe they had any particular issues with eating cams or lifters or any of the crap the AFM on the modern LS engines do either, so arguably not that terrible. Kind of glad my truck has the 4.8, v8 all the time, and it even pre-dates the variable timing cam phasor stuff that later ones got.


84 they 'fixed' the diesels but still never put a real fuel filter on them so the pumps died even if the engines did not. Ford learned from this, my car has a real water separator fuel filter and a water in fuel indicator like the trucks got. Diesel injection systems don''t like dirt or water. The thing that always baffled me about all of this, GM owns Detroit Diesel. They knew how to make a diesel engine, and they knew about fuel quality problems with diesel engines.

Oh. I think I got this mixed up with that funky EFI system early 80's Imperials had. Disconnecting the wire doesn't make it terrible in my mind, but reading about them? People made 'em out to be terrible.

That's exactly why I'd want a '02-'04 5.3 or 6.0. I think that's the sweet spot for the GMT800 platform, which I've grown quite fond of.

So if a guy put one of those fuel filters on his GM they'd be decent? That's the thing that baffles me about diesels. I used to think they were indestructible, but they've got quite the Achilles' heel. Not too bad if you know those sorts of things and keep up on 'em, but nothing I'd want to manage. Did Ford really engineer all of that or did they simply adapt all the work BMW did into their car? As for Detroit Diesel and GM, one thing I can say after working for a company which has many brands and products- they do not network very well and tend to make blunders like that all the time. Or, the department which knows stresses the importance of x, y and z, but the inquiring department says it doesn't matter in their case because a, b and c. "Pride only hurts, it never helps.." Fast forward a few years and the inquiring department is under fire, the department which knew is saying "We told you.." and making fun of the inquiring department.

It was this machine. Sold in 2007. Miss the car but don't regret selling it. It had the tripminder with a carb, used this funky fuel flow sensor on the intake. I think those are pretty unusual. Also had a barometric pressure sensor that played games with the Duraspark box to change the timing with altitude. And the tow package with a 3.08 open axle because it was the "class II" and not the class III. Audiovox radio with the premium sound. It had a lot of options that made it weird.

Hot damn, that's a nice box! Reminds me of David's car. I don't hate the Cragers either. Why don't you miss it? I know I would, looks minty. That's a lot of options for an early 80's Ford! Was it a St. Louis car? Any pics of it under hood? I'd like to see where they put that fuel flow sensor- how accurate was it? Guessing the baro sensor gave you trouble?

[Tiggie]

Oh. I think I got this mixed up with that funky EFI system early 80's Imperials had. Disconnecting the wire doesn't make it terrible in my mind, but reading about them? People made 'em out to be terrible.

That's exactly why I'd want a '02-'04 5.3 or 6.0. I think that's the sweet spot for the GMT800 platform, which I've grown quite fond of.

So if a guy put one of those fuel filters on his GM they'd be decent? That's the thing that baffles me about diesels. I used to think they were indestructible, but they've got quite the Achilles' heel. Not too bad if you know those sorts of things and keep up on 'em, but nothing I'd want to manage. Did Ford really engineer all of that or did they simply adapt all the work BMW did into their car? As for Detroit Diesel and GM, one thing I can say after working for a company which has many brands and products- they do not network very well and tend to make blunders like that all the time. Or, the department which knows stresses the importance of x, y and z, but the inquiring department says it doesn't matter in their case because a, b and c. "Pride only hurts, it never helps.." Fast forward a few years and the inquiring department is under fire, the department which knew is saying "We told you.." and making fun of the inquiring department.



Hot damn, that's a nice box! Reminds me of David's car. I don't hate the Cragers either. Why don't you miss it? I know I would, looks minty. That's a lot of options for an early 80's Ford! Was it a St. Louis car? Any pics of it under hood? I'd like to see where they put that fuel flow sensor- how accurate was it? Guessing the baro sensor gave you trouble?

It was an Oakville Ontario car. MPG calcs were reasonable. The sensor was on the intake on the side closest to the firewall. Didn't pay that much attention at the time because I didn't know what it was. Don't miss it because I bought an 94 Mustang to replace it, which I still have, enjoy, and it truly is minty. Just wasn't crazy about the four door sedan. Plus I got to keep the 88 box wagon.

[DerekTheGreat]

All of the early 80's boxes I inquired about have all been Canadian made. I didn't think much of my US built '85 when I got it as I was new to the box game with that car. But, seeing as I've never seen another one, especially as late as '85, I'm starting to think it was a rare bird.

I'm not crazy about four-doors either, but these are an exception for me. I still think the two-door versions are sexier, but I like the four-doors as well.

[gadget73]

So if a guy put one of those fuel filters on his GM they'd be decent?

"decent" is doing a lot of lifting here, but with a proper fuel filter you won't be paying for an expensive pump rebuild or replacement. Its still a 350 cid V8 diesel that makes like 130 hp.

That's the thing that baffles me about diesels. I used to think they were indestructible, but they've got quite the Achilles' heel. Not too bad if you know those sorts of things and keep up on 'em, but nothing I'd want to manage.

most engines have weaknesses but diesels absolutely hate bad fuel. The tolerances in the pumps and injectors are very tight, and dirt or "dry" fuel that doesn't lube things causes really expensive problems. Turbo diesels don't like dirty oil either if they have plain bearing turbos. Poor oil maintenance will wipe out the bearing and then the turbo wobbles around until it eats itself. Specific engines have other assorted particular problems but generally if you do the maintenance they give you less trouble like anything else. The standard maintenance does tend to be more expensive though, more oil, bigger and more expensive filters, etc.

Did Ford really engineer all of that or did they simply adapt all the work BMW did into their car?

All BMW parts, though some have minor difference from what BMW used, mostly stuff related to how it mounts to the car.

[DerekTheGreat]

From what I've seen with my uneducated eyes, all diesels, especially the non turbo variants, make shit for horsepower. Diesels make an abundance of torque at lower RPM's than a gasoline engine, so why aren't they rated/known by their torque output? I've always pondered at that. With that said, 130HP from 350 cubes in diesel trim from that era isn't too far off from what GM was getting out of them with gasoline. 1979 California spec gasser 350, anyone? What was the torque output from one of those? Didn't they get close to 30mpg out of those diesels? That's impressive, but at the expense of 'em being so damn pokey. I couldn't live with that.

That's the maintenance that would've bit me in the rear, if I bought one over a decade ago like I was considering. Got a C3500 with a 454 instead. Miss that truck...

[Arquemann]

From what I've seen with my uneducated eyes, all diesels, especially the non turbo variants, make shit for horsepower. Diesels make an abundance of torque at lower RPM's than a gasoline engine, so why aren't they rated/known by their torque output? I've always pondered at that. With that said, 130HP from 350 cubes in diesel trim from that era isn't too far off from what GM was getting out of them with gasoline. 1979 California spec gasser 350, anyone? What was the torque output from one of those? Didn't they get close to 30mpg out of those diesels? That's impressive, but at the expense of 'em being so damn pokey. I couldn't live with that.

That's the maintenance that would've bit me in the rear, if I bought one over a decade ago like I was considering. Got a C3500 with a 454 instead. Miss that truck...

When getting into bigger diesels (semi trucks and beyond), they do start to give the torque numbers first more often. When the displacement is 3 digits (in liters) and they rev for fuck all, HP isn't particularly relevant.

A guy I know has daily driven nothing but Olds diesels since the early 80's. Currently in an Ninety-Eight Regency, getting 30+ mpg all day every day.
The Olds diesels were pretty popular option for cars sold in and imported to Finland. Our fuel wasn't garbage even back then, but poor service network and winter conditions took their toll on the Olds diesels. Alot of them were eventually converted to 6.2 detroits or gassers.
I've driven a Parisienne with 350 that had some head work, headers and some fiddling done to the injection pump. It was pretty peppy, but they don't rev high nor do they make any power up top either. Like driving a smog-era big block, but without the sluggish feel.

[DerekTheGreat]

Starting engines that big is a production too, entertaining.

How do people drive in that region? I don't think those make enough power to hit 70mph here. I'd take a 4 cylinder gasser to that Oldsmobuick- the '94 Grand Am I had could do over 100mph while being pretty nimble and constantly returning 30+ mpg, if not doing 100mph. I only went that fast once in that car, teen me wanted to see if it would do it.

They put 6.2's in those? Neat. Guess I'd fiddle with a diesel if someone gave it to me or if I got it for dirt cheap. I'm still interested, but it's more of a curiosity. Big blocks are cool, but the small block in my K1500 is just as good for what I do. Only difference I noticed is that the big block didn't care if it was loaded or not- seemed to accelerate the same, whereas my small block lets you know any time you are towing something too heavy or at it's limit. Big block looked better under the hood, but wasn't worth 7.5mpg. Least that's what I thought at the time, but would happily own that same truck again.

[Arquemann]

Well, in Finland the only roads with speed limits above 80km/h are highways and main roads, 100 or 120km/h. There has never been an abundance of horsepower in the finnish car population until now, so the road network still reflects that to some degree. So only on on-ramps are you gonna need the most power. If your shitbox hits 100km/h in under ~12 seconds, you should be fine in 90% of scenarios. Joining a rush-hour 120kmh highway in a 50hp mk2 Ford Fiesta did cause some rectal discomfort, mainly because the old Fiesta was absolutely tiny.
Also Finland is mostly pretty flat land.

And gotta remember there's not many practical reasons to drive a V8 boat, diesel-flavoured or not.

[DerekTheGreat]

Exactly why I asked. US drivers for the most part are shit. You need power for all sorts of unpredictable situations. Seems as often as someone wants to blitz past you doing 20+ over, you need to skedaddle around someone else doing 20 under.

[Arquemann]

Oh you asked how PEOPLE drive here?

Probably better than in the US on average. Gotta be 18 yo and go thru pretty comprehensive driving school just to get a license. Old people need medical exams every 5 years to keep their license. Also a "roadworthy" vehicle seems to be a different concept here, less sketchy shit on the road. Cars are also expensive as fck so poorer people tend to learn more appreciation towards cars.

Classic dumb drivers is of course the tailgater, and since many roads have limits switching between 60 and 80 km/h, there's always the idiot who does 70 on both.
Lack of attention isn't too bad, but we don't have a million lanes on every road so maybe it's not as apparent there.

Now I have an excuse to link this classic:

[gadget73]

The LF9 is a 350 cu in (5.7 L) diesel V8 produced from 1978 to 1985. Earlier versions and those used in pickups (1978-1981) produced 120 hp (89 kW) at 3,600 rpm and 220 lb⋅ft (298 N⋅m) torque at 1,900 rpm, while later versions produced 105 hp (78 kW) and 205 lb⋅ft (278 N⋅m) torque. Maximum engine speed was listed as 4,200–4,400 rpm.

so it wasnt exactly good for torque either.

Just for comparison, the 2.4L turbo six in mine makes 113 hp @4800 and 155 lb-ft of torque. @2400. Redline is 5300. The N/A version made 85 hp and 112 lb-ft. Diesels like turbos.

Yes they do good for fuel mileage, but thats mostly because of the high compression ratio extracting more useful power from the fuel. The Olds and mine are both 22:1.

[DerekTheGreat]

Oh you asked how PEOPLE drive here?

Probably better than in the US on average. Gotta be 18 yo and go thru pretty comprehensive driving school just to get a license. Old people need medical exams every 5 years to keep their license. Also a "roadworthy" vehicle seems to be a different concept here, less sketchy shit on the road. Cars are also expensive as fck so poorer people tend to learn more appreciation towards cars.

Classic dumb drivers is of course the tailgater, and since many roads have limits switching between 60 and 80 km/h, there's always the idiot who does 70 on both.
Lack of attention isn't too bad, but we don't have a million lanes on every road so maybe it's not as apparent there.

Now I have an excuse to link this classic:

Wow, that video. "Chimpanzee." That would probably be taken as a racial slur here.

I'd appreciate old people exams and more intensive testing for new drivers. I'm not sure how people around here have enough funds to simply not care about their vehicle. I could speculate, but what good is that? Extra lanes help, but they're no match for incompetence.

so it wasnt exactly good for torque either.

Just for comparison, the 2.4L turbo six in mine makes 113 hp @4800 and 155 lb-ft of torque. @2400. Redline is 5300. The N/A version made 85 hp and 112 lb-ft. Diesels like turbos.

Yes they do good for fuel mileage, but thats mostly because of the high compression ratio extracting more useful power from the fuel. The Olds and mine are both 22:1.

WoW.. That.. is absolutely horrible. My 2.3L four-popper in that '94 God Dam made more torque. Pardon my ignorance here, compression and all that ultimately result in torque and horsepower, no? Because I see the difference and realize that with underpowered gas engines, you burn more fuel to motivate the same mass as an engine with enough power to actually do the job.. Diesels don't seem to care. So, is the huge MPG gap between gasoline and diesel due in part to diesels needing less fuel per cubic centimeter?

[gadget73]

The higher compression lets you get more power per unit of fuel. There is actually less energy in diesel fuel than gasoline, but the compression ratio gets more active use from what is there.

They also can run much leaner fuel mixes. Gas engines want ballpark 14.7:1, and too far from that either way costs power and possibly expensive parts. Diesels run somewhere like 35:1 when cruising and get more like 75:1 at idle. Full scream rolling coal is more like 14:1 but unless you're an idiot that feels the need to compensate for something that isnt where it spends most of its time.