351 Windsor in place of 302? 1996 F-150 content.

snailmont5oh wrote: I just found out that the TPS on my 302 ranges from 19.2% closed to 92% at WOT. That might be something for me to look into.

First: Make sure that the cable is opening the throttle all the way. When I swapped TB's on my Focus I found that the cable was not opening it all the way so I had to modify the cable bracket a bit.

Second: I don't trust readings where some device is taking resistance or voltage readings and interpreting them as percentages. Use a VOM to measure the actual resistance change looking for a smooth change as the TB is opened up. Then check the voltage output. IIRC, it should go from 0 to 5 volts.

yupididit wrote: Aren't the 5.4 and v10 f250 trucks stupid cheap right now?

Man, you don't want to start another 460 vs V10 battle here.

yupididit wrote: Aren't the 5.4 and v10 f250 trucks stupid cheap right now?

Had a 5.4 for a while. Thing pulled my Alfa around as if it wasn't there. And when doing it, it got .5 mpg better than my Ranger. 15.5 towing, 19ish when not. Bonus were the 4 doors (clamshell design). Other than it's size, it was a great truck.

I think you should head out to Warrenton with $1500 in your pocket, tow this back home, and fix it. Then you can moonlight as a serial killer, too.

https://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/cto/6045196212.html

I wouldn't mind a van, but I'd rather have a passenger van, because the registration is much cheaper. Of course, I could put antique tags on an 83.

Did someone mention pass. vans? I got one for sale, or will soon. E250 Ext. window van, Seats 5 with 125K original miles.

Engine? Location? Price? Condition? Pics??

Location: Chicago area Engine: 5.8L FI C6 trans Condition: 1988 E250 window van with two shades of faded gray paint, the roof is painted white however. . Price: To forum members - $1500. No pics right now. That's why I haven't posted it yet. It's in storage and the weather is cold & wet. Once I get a dry sunny day I'll get it out and get the pics and do a full description.

Sounds neat.

Now I'm having tow rig ADD. What does the hive have to say about a 2000-2006 Lincoln Navigator. 5.4, 4-valve, plenty of dry storage...sounds like it might not suck, as long as it wasn't a piece of E36 M3.

snailmont5oh wrote: Now I'm having tow rig ADD. What does the hive have to say about a 2000-2006 Lincoln Navigator. 5.4, 4-valve, plenty of dry storage...sounds like it might not suck, as long as it wasn't a piece of E36 M3.

I giggle slightly at the thought of a once-proud uber-lux SUV being used as a lowly tow pig. It's not a terrible idea on paper- luxury SUVs depreciate like rocks, and they still have all the truck-like underpinnings that make it a useful tow appliance. A friend of mine had a first-gen Escalade that he used as a race support vehicle- essentially a Tahoe. It was a pretty decent old beast- picked it up for a few thousand bucks, and the leather seats and DVD player were nice to have.

Not to turn this into a Ford-GM thing, but if I had my druthers, I'd lean more towards the 'Sclade than the Nastigator.

Navigator has IRS, IIRC. So the suspension isn't quite as suited to towing as the F-150 it's based on.

rslifkin wrote: Navigator has IRS, IIRC. So the suspension isn't quite as suited to towing as the F-150 it's based on.

Why?

If it pulls, it pulls.

Until we start getting the massive +10k loads, I don't see rear axle as some kind of limiting factor.

alfadriver wrote:

rslifkin wrote: Navigator has IRS, IIRC. So the suspension isn't quite as suited to towing as the F-150 it's based on.

Why? If it pulls, it pulls. Until we start getting the massive +10k loads, I don't see rear axle as some kind of limiting factor.

IRS gains camber as it compresses, solid axle doesn't. That comes with a couple of limitations for towing. IRS will have worse / more uneven tire wear. And it can also require higher load rated tires to carry the same load to avoid over-working the inner sidewall.

Leave it to me to suggest the most labour, skill and expensive solution...

Sounds like if you want to stick with the blue oval, Expedition/Excursion would be the way to go. A V-10 Excursion strikes me as just the right about of Extravagance.

How about just better heads and a stock mustang or towing cam in the existing engine. Stock heads and cam are sucking the life out of your engine.

rslifkin wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

rslifkin wrote: Navigator has IRS, IIRC. So the suspension isn't quite as suited to towing as the F-150 it's based on.

Why? If it pulls, it pulls. Until we start getting the massive +10k loads, I don't see rear axle as some kind of limiting factor.

IRS gains camber as it compresses, solid axle doesn't. That comes with a couple of limitations for towing. IRS will have worse / more uneven tire wear. And it can also require higher load rated tires to carry the same load to avoid over-working the inner sidewall.

If you load the trailer correctly, that won't be an issue.

Plus, getting air assisted shocks will also alleviate the problem.

Getting 0 suspension sag with a few hundred pounds of tongue weight on the back isn't going to happen. There shouldn't be excessive sag, but unless you have bricks in place of your springs, the suspension will compress some when you add weight. Plus, more weight means the suspension will cycle further over bumps too.

In reply to rslifkin:

Again, in the range we are actually working in, is it actually significant?

Given the truck, the camber gain curve was likely well thought out to NOT have a big detriment to towing.

I'd have no hesitation to pull my car and trailer with an IRS truck.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to rslifkin: Again, in the range we are actually working in, is it actually significant? Given the truck, the camber gain curve was likely well thought out to NOT have a big detriment to towing. I'd have no hesitation to pull my car and trailer with an IRS truck.

I don't know the camber curve of a Navigator well enough to know how significant it is. But I've seen plenty of IRS SUVs and such with loads of negative camber just from filling the back seat with people.

FWIW, Ford presumably thought something about the suspension made it not great for towing, as a 2004 Navigator is only rated to pull 6000 lbs. A 2004 Expedition could be optioned with an HD tow package that raised the rating from 6000 to 8650 / 8950 (for 4wd vs 2wd). Still IRS, but I can't find what was different (presumably at least significantly stiffer springs).

Maybe springs instead of air bags.

I looked a lot at Expeditions in those years for possible towing. Only difference between an HD Tow pack and the standard was the receiver hitch, 7 pin trailer wiring, and an added trans cooler. The radiator, transmission, and rear end ratios were all the same in most years.

The research I did pointed to the SUVs being happier with a slightly lower tongue weight for a given load than the pickups, for obvious reasons. If it were me, I'd look into a set of aftermarket helper airbags, but they are very capable tow vehicles.

I bought a 2005 Yukon XL Denali for $3500 and it's rated to tow close to 8,000 lbs.

Has the hitch and plug from the factory

volvoclearinghouse wrote: I giggle slightly at the thought of a once-proud uber-lux SUV being used as a lowly tow pig. It's not a _terrible_ idea on paper- luxury SUVs depreciate like rocks, and they still have all the truck-like underpinnings that make it a useful tow appliance. A friend of mine had a first-gen Escalade that he used as a race support vehicle- essentially a Tahoe. It was a pretty decent old beast- picked it up for a few thousand bucks, and the leather seats and DVD player were nice to have.

Not to derail this thread any more than it has been but I once pulled a Yugo on a car dolly through the Adirondack Mountains with a Lincoln Town Car. It worked quite nicely.