Ed,
Your talking about old school there, those were the earlier vesions of
the explorer, those issues have been taken care of.
Two totally different suspensions there, plus explorers recommended tire
pressures were 28 psi on those models. They also had known suspension
problems they tried to cure by lowering the tire pressure air instead of
redesign. this was even after a Ford experienced test driver rolled an
explorer on their own test track.
Jon
Ed Van Scoy wrote:
> Yeah, well maybe the Ford exploder (OOPS! Freaudian slip!!!) I
> mean Explorer, DOES have a higer "allowed" speed programed in,
> but they are also the defendants in about a bazillion lawsuits
> from blow-out induced roll-overs. Coincidence??
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
>>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:28:08 -0700
>>From: Jonathan Amo <webmaster@landracing.com>
>>Subject: Re: NT2 -vs- NT3
>>To: Ed Van Scoy <ed@vetteracing.com>
>>Cc: Nt788@aol.com, v4gr@rcn.com, lsr350@hotmail.com,
>>
> jkamo@home.com, RTMACK@pop3.concentric.net,
> r.hammond@sympatico.ca, RTMACK@concentric.net,
> land-speed@autox.team.net
>
>>Bull puckey if I ever heard of it. Why is it then its counter
>>
> part the
>
>>Explorer and escape with same tires have a 112-115 mph speed
>>
> rating. Or
>
>>even its rival the S10 pickups? Tires arent the issue. Then
>>
> 01 ranger
>
>>has the lowest governed speed rating of EVERY car on the market.
>>Try again?
>>
>>Jonathan
>>
>>Ed Van Scoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes It is a liability issue. The tires are not rated for
>>>
> higher speee.
>
>>>ed
>>>
>>>Jonathan Amo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:15:34 -0700
>>>>From: Jonathan Amo <webmaster@landracing.com>
>>>>To: Nt788@aol.com
>>>>Subject: Re: NT2 -vs- NT3
>>>>
>>>>Well Jack damn you do have all the answers, can you tell
>>>>
> me why my 2001
>
>>>>Ford Ranger V6 4.0L has a speed limiter at 91 mph?
>>>>
>>>>Jonathan (who cant get to bonneville any faster than 91
>>>>
> mph) Amo
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nt788@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In a message dated 2/11/2002 4:14:29 PM Pacific Standard
>>>>>
> Time,
>
>>>>>webmaster@landracing.com writes:
>>>>>
>>>>><< Why NT3 would need more horsepower? >>
>>>>>Jack Responds--- # 1 Neb III is heavier? # 2 Neb.II might
>>>>>
> use or
>
>>>>>average more
>>>>>HP per run?#3 Neb. II engine gearbox combo 40yrs. more
>>>>>
> efficient? #4
>
>>>>>Maybe
>>>>>Neb. III really doesn't really have more HP! Nebulous Theorem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
> Ed Van Scoy
>
>
> Land Speed 1985 Corvette #128
> C/GT, B/GT Record Holder
> No Nitrous, No Turbo, No Blower, No Problem
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed
|