Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #241  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:33 AM
sgtsandman sgtsandman is offline
Tank Diver
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,078
Default Re: More MPG!!

Running lean (which is what your mod is causing the engine to do) can cause all kinds of problems if not done properly. It can damage the engine (melt things) and cause emmision problems.
__________________
Sgtsandman's Work in Progress
2011 Ranger XLT, 4X4, 4 door Super Cab. 4.0L, 5 Speed M50D-R1HD, 3.73:1, 8.8" open differential, Jason Pace cap
1999 Honda CR-V EX, RT4WD, 2.0L, 5 Speed MT, 4.56:1, open differential
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:54 PM
FireRanger FireRanger is offline
Blinded by the light
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,674
Send a message via AIM to FireRanger
Default Re: More MPG!!

Make sure you take pictures of what's left of the motor. I'm curious how big of a hole each piston rod will make.
__________________
(Formerly)
FireRanger
2003 Edge 4.0 4wd

How to: Aux light wiring, relays, & fuses
Info: 300+ intake threads here on FRF
Info: HID Projectors
How To: NO HEAT Troubleshooting Guide
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:58 PM
Johnbaum13 Johnbaum13 is offline
<-----Buzz Killington
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,232
Send a message via Yahoo to Johnbaum13
Default Re: More MPG!!

I'm guessing he won't get as far as the rods coming out. More likely just holes in the pistons, and sunk valve seats.
__________________
I got my Jesus on the dashboard, but the Devil's under my hood!
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-11-2010, 05:33 AM
kennethwheless kennethwheless is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: More MPG!!

The warm air going in is less dense therefore less oxygen, which is good considering there is less fuel. If the conditions are lean, it is not extremely lean. Extreme lean conditions would create a lame engine sputtering out. Lean conditions only cause damage when there is no timing compensation. There are timing adjustors set up on the 2.3 and they are functioning. Besides, the additional air inlet only draws half of the air going to the throttle body. The truck is running at normal temperature and idles as it always has. The EGR inert gas going in is completely clean now that I've put a filter in the line. With no soot in the inert intake combustion is slightly more efficient.

Last edited by kennethwheless; 08-11-2010 at 05:34 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-11-2010, 06:50 AM
FireRanger FireRanger is offline
Blinded by the light
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,674
Send a message via AIM to FireRanger
Default Re: More MPG!!

Orly? So how do you figure your computer is managing the timing correctly when you are bypassing the sensors that it uses to determine that timing?
__________________
(Formerly)
FireRanger
2003 Edge 4.0 4wd

How to: Aux light wiring, relays, & fuses
Info: 300+ intake threads here on FRF
Info: HID Projectors
How To: NO HEAT Troubleshooting Guide
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-11-2010, 08:44 AM
kennethwheless kennethwheless is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: More MPG!!

The MAS and O2 sensors are trumped concerning ignition timing by way of camshaft position sensors. They do not directly dictate ignition timing. I do get some rattle when under load at low RPM. Can't tell if it's detonation or valve rattle. I am going to dial back the diameter of the hole slightly. It may be too much. I'm going to first try colder spark plugs and higher octane to fight the possible detonation.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-11-2010, 08:58 AM
FireRanger FireRanger is offline
Blinded by the light
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,674
Send a message via AIM to FireRanger
Default Re: More MPG!!

Gaurantee you it's detonation based on what you're doing to the engine. I must say, I find it quite comical that you're screwing up the engine to save a dollar or two at the pump, then are thinking about switching to more expensive gas to compensate for the side-effects. Seems to me that had you left it the way it was designed, it would work fine and without the added cost of fuel and blowing the engine up.
__________________
(Formerly)
FireRanger
2003 Edge 4.0 4wd

How to: Aux light wiring, relays, & fuses
Info: 300+ intake threads here on FRF
Info: HID Projectors
How To: NO HEAT Troubleshooting Guide
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-11-2010, 10:30 AM
kennethwheless kennethwheless is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: More MPG!!

I did'nt write a reply here to have some boyish argument with a contencious dude such as yourself. Your view is completely emotional and void of technical backing. Your're one of these dudes that has nothing better to do than scan the entries for something you can use to make a guy look foolish. You're probably a limp-wrist in real life.

The lowered fuel usage will outweight the extra price of 89 octane rating gas. Do some thinking nimrod. The shorter nosed spark plugs I just put in run cooler, that and the slightly higher octane rating should kill the detonation if there ever was any. And actually, I had a tunner friend drive and listen to the engine and he swears it's valve rattle. The noise has always been there. DOHC 4 bangers are notorious for valve rattle. It just might be that I've been listening too hard and got worried for nothing. It's comical to me that more people don't look into slight adjustments beyond normal maintenance.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-11-2010, 10:39 AM
kennethwheless kennethwheless is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: More MPG!!

Goodbye FRF, I thought this would be more of a technically helpful and insightful website. Instead, you've got people that would rather just focus on how they can disagree with someone. Useless if you ask me. I'll try one of the other ranger sites.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:16 AM
Johnbaum13 Johnbaum13 is offline
<-----Buzz Killington
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,232
Send a message via Yahoo to Johnbaum13
Default Re: More MPG!!

We here at FRF apologize for trying to stop the spread of information which most likely will cause engine damage when put in the hands of the people. We strive to promote good maintenance and safe driving to ensure the long and happy use of your truck. We also promote an atmosphere where ideas can be aired out to allow others to voice their opinions without fear of retribution. We promote advancement and modification when said modification is done safely, but also denounce hack jobs that may hurt the vehicle, it's operators, or others on the road. Thank you for visiting FRF, and enjoy your ownership experience.



On a side note, if your goal is to lean out the motor to a safe level to promote fuel economy, you would be much better off tuning the computer to lean the engine, instead of creating vacuum leaks. By tuning the engines computer, you keep all fail safe systems that are designed to save the engine in case of problems. Instead of trying to work around technology, try working with it. BTW, leaning the fuel mixture to a safe level should actually make more power, not less.
__________________
I got my Jesus on the dashboard, but the Devil's under my hood!
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:19 AM
Johnbaum13 Johnbaum13 is offline
<-----Buzz Killington
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,232
Send a message via Yahoo to Johnbaum13
Default Re: More MPG!!

And BTW, you are the only one here who stooped to "boyish" personal attacks. This is the interwebs, take criticism as what it is, and don't make assumptions about the knowledge on the other end of the keyboard.
__________________
I got my Jesus on the dashboard, but the Devil's under my hood!
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:30 AM
mazdab2300 mazdab2300 is offline
Totally bummed
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,106
Default Re: More MPG!!

he got so pissed lol looks kinda like he needs to learn how to understand constructive critisism
__________________
94 Mazda B2300
jvc head unit scosh hds and xplod speakers also have 2 12 inch subs in the back.
american racing directionals on 30/9.5/15s

INDIANA RANGERS
MAZDAS
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 08-11-2010, 01:59 PM
01_ranger_4x4 01_ranger_4x4 is offline
OIF Veteran

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,043
Default Re: More MPG!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethwheless View Post
I did'nt write a reply here to have some boyish argument with a contencious dude such as yourself. Your view is completely emotional and void of technical backing. Your're one of these dudes that has nothing better to do than scan the entries for something you can use to make a guy look foolish. You're probably a limp-wrist in real life.

The lowered fuel usage will outweight the extra price of 89 octane rating gas. Do some thinking nimrod. The shorter nosed spark plugs I just put in run cooler, that and the slightly higher octane rating should kill the detonation if there ever was any. And actually, I had a tunner friend drive and listen to the engine and he swears it's valve rattle. The noise has always been there. DOHC 4 bangers are notorious for valve rattle. It just might be that I've been listening too hard and got worried for nothing. It's comical to me that more people don't look into slight adjustments beyond normal maintenance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethwheless View Post
Goodbye FRF, I thought this would be more of a technically helpful and insightful website. Instead, you've got people that would rather just focus on how they can disagree with someone. Useless if you ask me. I'll try one of the other ranger sites.
i dont think anybody was out of line in this thread except for you. they are trying to tell you that what you are doing can damage your engine. you can try other ranger sites but i can guarantee if you go on another site and tell them what you are doing with your truck you will get the same kind of responses as you did here. I know that because im on a few other ranger/ ford sites besides this one. no need to leave this site because of some constructive criticism you received in this thread. you need to remember, this is the internet. anything you post is subject to criticism whether you think its warranted or not, these guys are just trying to help you avoid possible damage to your truck. if you disagree with them than stop arguing and move on. we do hope you stick around, i think you will find that there is a great group of members here that really do know there stuff when it comes to these trucks, just keep an open mind.
__________________
2001 Ranger 4x4 Stepside
-RCD Suspension lift
-33x12.5 BFG KM2's on Mickey Thomson classic locks
-4:56 gears
-Auburn gear LS
-James Duff traction bars
-Headers
-Flowmaster duals
-SCT X-Cal2 and some small exterior mods

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2321189

2005 F-150 Lariat 4x4
-LED third brake light
-Weathertech floor liners
-Edge tuner
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 08-11-2010, 05:05 PM
FireRanger FireRanger is offline
Blinded by the light
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,674
Send a message via AIM to FireRanger
Default Re: More MPG!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethwheless View Post
I did'nt write a reply here to have some boyish argument with a contencious dude such as yourself. Your view is completely emotional and void of technical backing. Your're one of these dudes that has nothing better to do than scan the entries for something you can use to make a guy look foolish. You're probably a limp-wrist in real life.

The lowered fuel usage will outweight the extra price of 89 octane rating gas. Do some thinking nimrod. The shorter nosed spark plugs I just put in run cooler, that and the slightly higher octane rating should kill the detonation if there ever was any. And actually, I had a tunner friend drive and listen to the engine and he swears it's valve rattle. The noise has always been there. DOHC 4 bangers are notorious for valve rattle. It just might be that I've been listening too hard and got worried for nothing. It's comical to me that more people don't look into slight adjustments beyond normal maintenance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennethwheless View Post
Goodbye FRF, I thought this would be more of a technically helpful and insightful website. Instead, you've got people that would rather just focus on how they can disagree with someone. Useless if you ask me. I'll try one of the other ranger sites.
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/YT]

And don't let the door hit you in your boyish contentious ass on the way out, dude.



__________________
(Formerly)
FireRanger
2003 Edge 4.0 4wd

How to: Aux light wiring, relays, & fuses
Info: 300+ intake threads here on FRF
Info: HID Projectors
How To: NO HEAT Troubleshooting Guide
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 11-21-2011, 10:45 PM
54inches 54inches is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3
Default Re: More MPG!!

Hey guys, just found the forum and this was the first thread that I searched for.

My DD right now is a 2005 CTSV and I just acquired my Dad's 2001 2.3 Stick short and wide ranger with 54k on the odo.

It is good to see the mpgs that guys are getting.

I am looking at tuning her up, and getting her straight before I do any mpg "mods" but I want to lower her a bit and possibly add a belly pan with heat extractor vents along with some lighter weight wheels.

This brings me to one question; what STOCK wheels that will bolt right up from Ford? (I am a chevy guy; don't hate me!)

There was an argument half way through this thread about CAI intakes and yes A LOT of vehicles do not see any gains due to JUST a CAI. It usually requires a fre-flowing muffler at the least. If you increase the amount of air that the engine can take in, then you have to do the same to the exhaust side of the engine.

With that said, if the engine is optimized on the intake/exhaust sides of the vehicle from the factory, then the discussion is moot as nothing but engine work will help.

And comparing a Colorado to a Ranger is just dumb as they are not even made by the same company. But if you cannot prove it with a dyno or a timeslip; it didn't happen. What is even dumber is using the company that make the product to back up your claim; that is FN funny!

Prime example, cummins diesels require much more massaging to get power over stock pout of them than a duramax; the early models 5.0 Fords take ALOT less cam than a similar 5.0 Chevy of the same vintage; late 80s, but that is dumb to compare them...just saying.

I was surprised to see that the tonneau cover was a help.

And I was glad to see someone actually mentioned weight reduction. I think this should be explored and expounded on more. I think and weight aft the cabin should be left where it is or relocated from the front of the vehicle to the rear. Sprung mass should be lessened where available.

Someone had mentioned that 55 mph was optimum; well this is true for a flat rode without any over passes.

I did extensive testing on my 2003 CTS, V6 with a theory. If the engine has to work harder to get up a hill at 55 mph then it is going to have to drop a gear, bring up the rpms and hurt gas mileage.

So I kept increasing the speed each week by 5 mph and all other factors kept generally constant. I found the sweet spot on this road under these conditions to be around 75-80. These were mild hils and by using the cars momentum it never downshifted and stayed in a nice rpm range and my mileage on the highway stayed around 27 mpg.

Just some of my reflections and experiences.

Thanks for a great site!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search