2.9 performance
i was woundering if there is anything i can do to get more power out of my 2.9.
|
theres alot you can do it all depends what level you are looking for.
Are you looking for bolt on power, if your motor is healthy enough for it, or are you thinking of flowing the heads, getting better duration cams, and upgrading the ignition? All it comes down to is how far you are wiling to take it, or can, money can be a concern and lack of skill as a mechanic is costly. Let us know. |
im looking for bolt on im not getting into heads or cams if i do that i may as well drop in a v8. and im lookin to do it somewhat cheap
|
Go here: The Ranger Station - Technical Library
Ranger Engines > 2.9 V6 & 2.9 Tips (Kunz Korner) Pat Kunz did a massive amount of work on a 2.9 Cologne engine and got 250+ HP out it. I did some of his improvements and it really made a difference. Start with the throttle body and a cold air intake with a K&N or your choice of filter. (You will probably have to build your own which is simple and cost about $35 at Lowes, I can help you out there.) FYI, the 86 and early 87 2.9's had a shorter deck height, .020, these engines were real HP makers. Pat had a 86 2.9L in a Ranger, it was a Corvette eater, so far as I can remember, the only thing that ate up his Ranger was a North Star or something like that. My 86 B2 was a real hellcat after I got it to breath and opened up the exhaust, don"t go over board with the exhaust, a 2 1/4" with free flow muffler, good cats and the opened up intake is really all you want to start, then continue on with other mods. I did the 5.0 throttle body later. The one I found was 70mm, (they can be had in at least 3 different sizes) I am not sure it was off of a 5.0. The adapter bolck I built out of 1" thick aluminum. I suggest you pick up an upper intake and do all your adapting to it and then install the whole unit. I don't know if your Ranger came with a MAF or not, if so you won't need to adapt one in, if not find one that fits into the air intake hose, (be aware, some 5.0 throttle bodies have a MAF built into them beside the TPS). For a few $$ outlay, and a considerable amount of time you can get some serious go out of a 2.9. Ray |
Quote:
This is what I've learned about this engine - CAIs do nothing for you on this engine, though the original intake system can be modded at the core support. The different TB will give you different throttle response. The stock heads for this engine are garbage and the valve springs tend to be pretty soft (float). Real performance increases are expensive. This engine does quite well for it's displacement, what you probably want is to re-gear. I ran a cam with new heads (milled .030") on MAS setup with all sorts of mods. While it was fun building and driving, I ended up swapping a 5.0L in 6 years later. I actually just got it done and have put roughly 50 miles on it so far. Money for power ratio on a 2.9L isn't good. Pete |
Quote:
http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/c...pter-plate.jpg Cost caused me to change streams, too much custom, the aftermarket is pretty small. But Camcraft does have some goodies (Power Max Heads, Computer Friendly Cams (mine was a non-computer friendly custom grind), and 1.5:1 roller rockers (stock is 1.43:1 IIRC). Pete |
I always understood cold air was better than hot air when mixing with fuel.
Cold being denser than hot, it is supposed to fill the cylinder better. Ray |
Quote:
But the stock intake system pulls air from the front core support, isolated from the engine bay. This is essentially a cold air intake from the factory, but there is a rain/junk guard that could somewhat bottle neck it at high RPM. At lot of these intakes I see being built/installed actually don't pull any fresh air from outside, but the hot air that's under the hood. Sort of going backwards on that one. Aftermarket "CAIs" can be done for sure, but very rarely do I ever see a good setup made that's superior (ram air) to how the stock system works. Pete |
Well I did a little back ground on this motor and it seems it is a bit of a father less Ford product. Obviously I always recommend running a CAI, for this motor you would need to make it a draft ram but the trick is it seems is that you also need to compensate the fuel as it seems to have meager mapping. Also the heads apparently are garbage. . . If you would seriously like to get some power from this motor it would seem that heads are going to be a must. If not into that, then run a good CAI setup, upgrade coils, plugs, wires, and step up to a Walbro and possibly upgraded injectors. It is really sad to see a V6 dancing along at 140HP, especially since with aging it's probably somewhere around 110HP. Another thing to do would be to keep stock exhaust but run decent headers. But by them time you do this you could probably get a 5.0 with harness. . . . . It would be double the output of the upgraded 2.9. . . . . sucks huh.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Bigger injectors will only cause problems, the 14lb/s injectors were also used in low performance 5.0Ls Fords, among other engines. The computer is programmed expecting the injectors to flow a certain amount of fuel. BTDT :) Quote:
Pete |
Quote:
Upgraded ignition will always help. (dynoable results.) As for the fuel, that was information specific to this engine by friends of mine who run Bronco's, one bud alone has 3. . . 1 still being a 2.9 the others are running 351's now. I can ask the specific reason for this, but I tend to not look a gifted horse in the mouth. I do not recall saying anything about bigger injectors. . . Upgraded yes, i.e. not stock there is more than likely a reason beyond my experience for this. I do not know the 2.9 motor, never had or dealt with one. Probably would not due to the apparent breathing issues with them as for tapping them. It is like computers, yea a Gateway computer will surf the Web, but try to overclock it and it'll burn. . . . . |
Quote:
Here's a quote strait from an MSD tech guy, and this is even with using an MSD 6AL box: Quote:
While this applies to their product, you'll see a lot of people recommend using what it came with from the factory (they do have millions of dollars to invest in testing after all). And this is the copper core plugs for this engine. I would reccomend you do some reading on how coils and ignition systems work. Accel coil pack as an aftermarket ignition system? No way. Quote:
Quote:
Pete |
Quote:
Well, well , well where to begin. Get a pen and paper here son, your gonna want to remember this. Electricity jumps. For atomization what works better and single overkill or a wide pattern for igniting compressed vapor. . . . . Why don't you ask Mr. Tech? Wonder why companies would have spent millions, designing alternate grounding nodes? As for running copper vs. anything else. . . are you kidding me? the direct purpouse of the modified plugs is resistance(ohms) per part, and atmospheric resistance. . . . . Why don't you ask Mr. Tech? The statement about firing a copper the same as any other hype plug. . . Duh Same applied current to both. What does this have to do with vapor ignition? ? ? (you need to pay attention to what you are reading) Before you go recommending someone go read on how ignition systems work, I suggest you have your own knowledge to bring to the table. I have built and run many a toys off of a 6AL box. Great ignition, whay dont you ask MSD what MSD stands for and then compare Accel MS coil packs to MSD, Hmm, something seems relative in that statement. Anymore education I'll have to start charging you. With your inherent knowledge of the workings of engine components I'm sure your 2.9 that you know and have is a real monster. . . . .(sarcastically joking=p) Another freebie for you: Imagine a motor company by your definiton stupid enough to build a motor developed over thousands of hours of engineering that would incorporate two spark plugs in the design of the motor. . . . . it would be a complete waste and produce no more power than a single copper plug. . . . . Is it hitting home yet? Hint their colors are silver and blue. . . Please Sir do enlighten me with your rebuttle this is so easy it is fun. P.S. Keep in mind when propagandizing, they have to sell their product to as many people as possible. =) this statement has not been evaluated by the food and drug administration and is not intended to treat or cure any diseases, it is merely to help avoid bad knowledge being passed on to others. All in good spirits of course. |
Quote:
You do realize that the 2.9L is a batch fire engine? In the end, spark is spark. What you're describing is not going to make a notable difference here. Quote:
Electricity also follows the least path of resistance, so those multi-grounding plugs still only have one spark at a time. Copper is a very good conductor and also dissipates heat well. Still waiting on your response as to what is wrong with copper core plugs in a mildly build engine? Quote:
core plugs was some sort of problem? Must be fine if they recommend them. I brought up the Accel statement because you seem to feel a simple coil justifies as an aftermarket ignition system (hardy even so). Quote:
Quote:
Actually the dual spark plug design on the 2.3L actually completes the burn better. There is a larger area of spark, results in better emissions and slightly better fuel economy. Quote:
Pete |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
C'mon sparky try and keep up. Quote:
Quote:
Let that sink in. So think about it very long and careful, the barrier for the arc is nullified by the vapor. i.e. the spark rides the vapor just like conductor, just like lightning disperses out then down(or in further education up). By having the purer nodes it allows the spark to hit at multiple points, igniting a "greater area" of the chamber. . . . . You should prolly read about this little thing called hemispherical combustion. . . . . When you understand the reason and benifit it'll help get you past this affair with copper and help this guy out. Quote:
Quote:
He is not looking for fine he is looking for better. . . . . Focus young skywalker. . . Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have to think about the enviroment. Sure .5amps is .5amps, but if standing in a fireworks factory would a 50cal. bullet get a bigger bang or an incendiary grenade. . . . . This one better work Iam gonna copy it first. Man my fingers are tired if this doesn't help you out then I am afraid I have to agree. Best of luck! |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM. |