U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2010, 09:38 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,321 posts, read 10,583,466 times
Reputation: 2395

Advertisements

Thanks, Mitch,

When I spoke w/the seller on the phone, he said it was a long bed, but it doesn't look like a long bed in the photos and the guys in my shop say that as well.

Yes, no power steering. I know the full weight of the truck is on the wheels when it's at a standstill, and I must be mindful to keep the truck moving when I'm turning, specifically when parking and such. That will just take a mental adjustment on my part. I did take my very first drivers test years ago on an old maverick w/no power steering, but that was eons ago!

I am concerned about the brakes issue though. I'll have to ask if there has been any work done on them. From what I understand, those are the old drum brakes, right? Is there something I should keep in mind when looking or driving the F100 regarding this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2010, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,589 posts, read 2,889,215 times
Reputation: 3067
Think a smaller truck would suit your needs better than the 67. Would definately want power steering and not have to mess around with points (unless it had electronic ignition upgrade). I have owned a 97 Ranger 2.3, regular cab with 7 foot longbox, since 2000. It had 59K when I bought it, now has 90K. I have overloaded it many times with tree trunks and logs, patio blocks, a dozen sheets of 1/2" drywall.....never broke any leaf springs. Sure did have that box in lowrider mode with those kind of loads. Would hold 65 or 70 MPH with a heavy load, but some hills can slow you down. Never hauled a heavy load like that more than 20 miles, but ran many loads under 500 pounds for long distances without any problems.

Really like the plastic bed liner with slots for 2x4's, makes it easy to haul 8' sheets of drywall or plywood. Best to build a double stud piece for the back slot, a top stud that fits in the slot, connected to a bottom one that lays flat across bottom of liner, connected with short support studs. This will keep the liner from bowing up at the bottom when you have lots of down pressure on the sides (hauling drywall), and will help to keep a few sandbags held in place back by the tailgate in snowy weather.

If I drive it in heavy stop and go city traffic, or 80 MPH on a hilly interstate, I can manage to knock the gas milage down to about 16 MPG, but usually get close to 20 with normal driving, and can get close to 25MPG if I drive it 55 MPH on a long flat trip with few stops.... I have the lighter aluminum rims, but never upgraded from stock air filter to K-N kit, which I have heard might help squeeze a couple more MPG's out of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 05:52 AM
 
10,869 posts, read 41,150,426 times
Reputation: 14009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
(snip)

If I drive it in heavy stop and go city traffic, or 80 MPH on a hilly interstate, I can manage to knock the gas milage down to about 16 MPG, but usually get close to 20 with normal driving, and can get close to 25MPG if I drive it 55 MPH on a long flat trip with few stops.... I have the lighter aluminum rims, but never upgraded from stock air filter to K-N kit, which I have heard might help squeeze a couple more MPG's out of it.
We get better fuel mileage with the 3.0 V-6 than this under load ... our 24-25 mpg at 65-70 mph unloaded drops to 20-22 mpg under load. We've never gotten less than 20 mpg, and that was with towing the heavy 22' sailboat into the mountains at 60 mph. We've even been to farm auctions where the truck was loaded in the cab and piled high with stuff in the bed so we had a lot of windage ... looked like a bunch of hillbillies on the move with all the stuff stacked and tied down on the truck ... my wife was mortified to see her truck so loaded, but it handled the load just fine. These are tough little workhorse trucks. I've brought 2,000 lb supersacks of feed home from the mill, and they fit easily into the bed ... in fact, are easier to load/unload then from our full size trucks and the supersack doesn't need to be tied down because it doesn't have room to slide around in the smaller truck bed of the Ranger. You can tell the truck has a load in it when you accelerate onto the highway for our 30 mile trip home, but it does fine at 70-75 mph.

Our base elevation is 6,000', and we're in hilly country to begin with. The 2.3 ltr 4 cylinder would struggle around here even if unloaded ... and our highways are 75 mph.

The K&N air filter advertising for fuel economy doesn't match the reality of it's performance. We saw no difference with one in our Rangers, and I also have one in my 1995 F-250 Powerstroke (only because the first owner installed it) which has no better fuel economy than an identical truck driven in similar circumstances by a neighbor. We've both towed my stock trailer with our horses to our riding destinations, and we both get similar ... within a fraction of a gallon ... fuel economy. Doesn't matter who drives ... we get virtually identical fuel economy in either truck with either driver on the same roads to the same destination. The only advantage I see to the K&N over the long term is the ability to clean and reuse the filter. If there was a fuel economy advantage to it, it would have to be in a comparison of a rather plugged up paper air filter greatly restricting airflow compared to a clean K&N.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 07:08 AM
 
Location: The Great State of Texas, Finally!
5,321 posts, read 10,583,466 times
Reputation: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
Think a smaller truck would suit your needs better than the 67. Would definately want power steering and not have to mess around with points (unless it had electronic ignition upgrade). I have owned a 97 Ranger 2.3, regular cab with 7 foot longbox, since 2000. It had 59K when I bought it, now has 90K. I have overloaded it many times with tree trunks and logs, patio blocks, a dozen sheets of 1/2" drywall.....never broke any leaf springs. Sure did have that box in lowrider mode with those kind of loads. Would hold 65 or 70 MPH with a heavy load, but some hills can slow you down. Never hauled a heavy load like that more than 20 miles, but ran many loads under 500 pounds for long distances without any problems.

Really like the plastic bed liner with slots for 2x4's, makes it easy to haul 8' sheets of drywall or plywood. Best to build a double stud piece for the back slot, a top stud that fits in the slot, connected to a bottom one that lays flat across bottom of liner, connected with short support studs. This will keep the liner from bowing up at the bottom when you have lots of down pressure on the sides (hauling drywall), and will help to keep a few sandbags held in place back by the tailgate in snowy weather.

If I drive it in heavy stop and go city traffic, or 80 MPH on a hilly interstate, I can manage to knock the gas milage down to about 16 MPG, but usually get close to 20 with normal driving, and can get close to 25MPG if I drive it 55 MPH on a long flat trip with few stops.... I have the lighter aluminum rims, but never upgraded from stock air filter to K-N kit, which I have heard might help squeeze a couple more MPG's out of it.
You make decent points. The seller of the F100 has upgraded to electronic ignition. I thought I mentioned that in my original post, but I may have overlooked it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2010, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,589 posts, read 2,889,215 times
Reputation: 3067
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
We get better fuel mileage with the 3.0 V-6 than this under load ... our 24-25 mpg at 65-70 mph unloaded drops to 20-22 mpg under load. We've never gotten less than 20 mpg, and that was with towing the heavy 22' sailboat into the mountains at 60 mph. We've even been to farm auctions where the truck was loaded in the cab and piled high with stuff in the bed so we had a lot of windage ... looked like a bunch of hillbillies on the move with all the stuff stacked and tied down on the truck ... my wife was mortified to see her truck so loaded, but it handled the load just fine. These are tough little workhorse trucks. I've brought 2,000 lb supersacks of feed home from the mill, and they fit easily into the bed ... in fact, are easier to load/unload then from our full size trucks and the supersack doesn't need to be tied down because it doesn't have room to slide around in the smaller truck bed of the Ranger. You can tell the truck has a load in it when you accelerate onto the highway for our 30 mile trip home, but it does fine at 70-75 mph.

Our base elevation is 6,000', and we're in hilly country to begin with. The 2.3 ltr 4 cylinder would struggle around here even if unloaded ... and our highways are 75 mph.

The K&N air filter advertising for fuel economy doesn't match the reality of it's performance. We saw no difference with one in our Rangers, and I also have one in my 1995 F-250 Powerstroke (only because the first owner installed it) which has no better fuel economy than an identical truck driven in similar circumstances by a neighbor. We've both towed my stock trailer with our horses to our riding destinations, and we both get similar ... within a fraction of a gallon ... fuel economy. Doesn't matter who drives ... we get virtually identical fuel economy in either truck with either driver on the same roads to the same destination. The only advantage I see to the K&N over the long term is the ability to clean and reuse the filter. If there was a fuel economy advantage to it, it would have to be in a comparison of a rather plugged up paper air filter greatly restricting airflow compared to a clean K&N.
Thanks for the info about the K&N filter upgrade, always thought it might help fuel economy, but if not, then why spend money for it. I still have the same fram air filter in there that it came with in 2000. Keep pulling it out every year and it looks just as clean as it did in 2000, and my fuel economy has not changed from that time, but still I might buy a new one in another 5 years or so. Never was real impressed with the fuel economy, considering it has the 2.3 and the truck only weighs 3000 pounds to begin with, would rather have the 3.0 V6.

Of some problems I have encountered, wipers quit working, oil cap stripped out, and rubber fuel hose from fill nozzel to tank developed a leak when you fill up on gas. The wiper probem was from corrosion in the main stick electrical plug on the steering column, where it plugs in at the bottom. A little cleaning of the contacts with tuner cleaner spray and scraping with tiny screwdriver fixed that problem. If you overtighten the oil cap (has clutch mechanism) it will strip out and turn but will not unscrew. Break off the outter cap by prying between the cap thumbtab and valve cover with large screwdriver. Then use channel locks to unscrew inner cap.

The gas hose problem is from Ford cheaping out on the quality of the hose, much like the gas cap. The hose will split where it curves and connects to the top of the gas tank. If you reach your arm between the bed and the tank, feel for the split on the top part of the elbow bend where it connects to tank. Take a bunch of silicone and smear it on your finger, reach up there and cover the split with it, repeat several times. The idea being to cover the split, not to see how much you can force into the crack of the split. Let it dry and never top off your gas tank again. This fix has been working for 3 years now.

Another problem was a funny shreiking noise from the exhaust. Look at the metal cover that protects the cat convertor from salt. It cracks and starts coming apart. Don't tear it off, just wrap and tie it with stiff baling wire, so all the cover is tight and secure against the cat. That fix is on it's 8th year for me now.

Oh, and one other problem, was hearing a clanking sound from the rear end. Discovered the top sleeve from one of the rear shocks had broken off at the top and slid down over the bottom part of shock. Hook some stiff baling wire into bottom lip of top sleeve, run wire along exterior of top sleeve, lift sleeve with wire and tie it at the top where it broke off. Add a second wire for the other side of sleeve and tie it on top. Did that about 6 years ago, still works.

Last edited by mofford; 09-11-2010 at 05:10 PM.. Reason: add info about shock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top