• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Aerostar Intake


JayGeePee

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Beaufort, NC
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
V6(3.0)
Transmission
Manual
Has anyone tried the aerostar intake on there 3.0L Ranger? I've heard of this being done-Also heard it gives more bottom end torque and top end power than the stock one. I'm assuming its that way on the aerostar because not only does it weigh more than the ranger but its also suppose to carry more passengers.(weight):icon_confused:
 


stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
562
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
I'm assuming you're talking about the upper intake, and you'd be putting it on the truck in your avatar. If so, you'd probably see larger gains by switching to a 98-up ranger intake. They're much less restrictive than anything pre98. I believe 01-up were composite as well, and have an even better torque curve than 98-00. From there you could fairly easily add a 60mm escape throttle body and give your stock engine all the air it could need.
 

JayGeePee

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Beaufort, NC
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
V6(3.0)
Transmission
Manual
I'm assuming you're talking about the upper intake, and you'd be putting it on the truck in your avatar. If so, you'd probably see larger gains by switching to a 98-up ranger intake. They're much less restrictive than anything pre98. I believe 01-up were composite as well, and have an even better torque curve than 98-00. From there you could fairly easily add a 60mm escape throttle body and give your stock engine all the air it could need.
So 01 and up Upper Plenums are an ideal swap on my generation ranger? What years do I look for on the Ford Escape Throttle bodies? 02 and up?:icon_confused: What are we looking at maybe a 15-25ft.lbs, and about the same on HP on this swap?
 

Beanmachine7000

New Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
So 01 and up Upper Plenums are an ideal swap on my generation ranger? What years do I look for on the Ford Escape Throttle bodies? 02 and up?:icon_confused: What are we looking at maybe a 15-25ft.lbs, and about the same on HP on this swap?
I highly doubt you'll see any gains.... I'd be quite surprised to see that 3.0L pull enough air for the OEM intake to be any restriction...
 

JayGeePee

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Beaufort, NC
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
V6(3.0)
Transmission
Manual
I'm guessing the only real way to pull any power out of these motors is to supercharge them, after market headers, port polish heads, etc. I'm not willing to spend that much money on a 3.0L V6. I lose either way on this one... I could go the V8 route, but in my state if you have anything 97 or above the motor has to be 97 or above. That means the modular motor would have to go in, which is beyond my knowledge. 250hp would be just right in this truck...
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
562
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
25hp might be a little optimistic, but you'd see noticeable gains for sure. Just do your research. The escape throttle body mod is far from bolt on. I think you'd have to build up areas on the composite upper with jb weld in order to get everything to seal right.
 

Big Jim M

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
2,728
Reaction score
30
Points
0
Age
86
Location
Austin
Vehicle Year
2002
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
Jeez guys! What we must assume here is the stock configuration doesn't allow the cylinders to fill on each stroke... Now if we do assume that and we also assume this swap WILL ALLOW more mixture to enter the cylinders.. WHat do we now have to assume will be the results?
Well since these little engines are already prone to clattering from too much compression,
how bout, now we have an engine that simply will NOT stop clattering! And will also run rather poorly from all the retarded timing and richened mixture the computer will now be demanding..
In short, my point here is, don't waste your time. There can be no gain from such a modification.
If ya want more horses get a bigger engine.
Big JIm
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
562
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
If there were no gain, then why would Ford spend money designing, developing, and producing a different intake manifold? The 98-00 aluminum intakes are a completely different and much less restrictive design than pre 98's. They can even be ported out if desired. Ford switched to a slightly longer runner, and a composite material in 01 I believe, which gives approximatley the same benefits as a ported 98-00 aluminum upper.
 

Beanmachine7000

New Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
If there were no gain, then why would Ford spend money designing, developing, and producing a different intake manifold? The 98-00 aluminum intakes are a completely different and much less restrictive design than pre 98's. They can even be ported out if desired. Ford switched to a slightly longer runner, and a composite material in 01 I believe, which gives approximatley the same benefits as a ported 98-00 aluminum upper.
What we're saying is that it doesn't matter whether it is less restrictive or not, that little 3.0L isn't pulling enough air for the intake manifold to be a restriction...
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
562
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
And what I'm saying, is that Ford wouldn't have spent man hours, and money redesigning the upper intakes if there wasn't a gain as a result. Obviously, Ford realized that the upper intakes on pre 98 3.0's were a restriction, and could be improved upon. Thats why they made an entirely different upper intake for the newer trucks.
 

Big Jim M

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
2,728
Reaction score
30
Points
0
Age
86
Location
Austin
Vehicle Year
2002
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0
Transmission
Manual
Ok I'll try..

And what I'm saying, is that Ford wouldn't have spent man hours, and money redesigning the upper intakes if there wasn't a gain as a result. Obviously, Ford realized that the upper intakes on pre 98 3.0's were a restriction, and could be improved upon. Thats why they made an entirely different upper intake for the newer trucks.
RESTRICTIVE is a code word the aftermarket guys use. THEY are trying to make the gullible public THINK Ford, and others, have spent millions of engineering hours and designed RESTRICTIVE intakes, (among other things).
So we see changes in the Ford intakes and we THINK the one being replaced was "restrictive"..
There could be many reasons Ford has changed from this intake to that intake. COST could be one reason. Underhood shape and use, could be another.
So you ask, why are the runners longer? Perhaps it could be as simple as NOISE eminating from the intake... or even limitations in the manufacturing of that product.. But we do know for sure one thing... It wasn't because the older one was "restrictive".
New and different mean just that! New and different don't mean "less restrictive"..
And always remember if the old one was restricting the flow to the cylinder, and the new one doesn't..the engine will be in one whole hell of a lot of trouble with the less restrictive one installed.. Because the old engine was designed around the amount of fuel in the cylinder.. If the new one allows MORE fuel into the cylinder..bad things begin to happen.

On the other hand if one was building an engine that was to be used at 7, 8, or even 9,000 rpm, he would build that engine around completely different components than the stock ones. As at them rpm the stock components would prove to be "restrictive".
Big JIm:hottubfun::wub:
 

JP02XLT

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
466
Reaction score
8
Points
18
Location
Indiana
Vehicle Year
02
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Automatic
More than likely Fords main reason for going to the composite intakes was cost, I am sure they are cheaper to produce than the previous aluminum units.
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2,216
Reaction score
562
Points
113
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
So you ask, why are the runners longer? Perhaps it could be as simple as NOISE eminating from the intake... or even limitations in the manufacturing of that product.. But we do know for sure one thing... It wasn't because the older one was "restrictive".
:
This is just speculation. Isn't it in the realm of possibility that the upper intake manifod design could be improved, and thats why they did it? To be fair though, I'm only speculating that it would work. Nobody who has posted in this thread has actually done this mod. Some of us don't even have a 3.0. I've had a 3.0 for 6 years now, and I've done A LOT of reading/research on improvements that can be made. While Ford did a great job, designing the 3.0, I feel, along with others, that there is room for improvement. I've read from several people that have done this mod, and they all claimed a noticeable improvement. I'll take first hand experience from actual 3.0 owners over theories and hypotheticals from others anyday.:icon_thumby:
 

Beanmachine7000

New Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,007
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Tennessee
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
Show me two back to back DYNO runs with the stock intake and the "better" one... I usually don't believe what people say unless I can see it on paper...
 

JayGeePee

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Beaufort, NC
Vehicle Year
1997
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
V6(3.0)
Transmission
Manual
Well, I see I cant really get a strait answer, so I'm not going to mess with it. Its not worth it anyway. I actually developed or am developing a problem with my Cam Syncronizer. I tought the chirping noise I heard was my belt, but I traced it back to the Cam Syncro. I heard there a problem on the 3.0L's. A seized motor dont sound good so I'm going to take it out tomorrow and check it. I'm going to go ahead and replace it, just for a peice of mind. My alternator is getting pretty noisy too. Anyone know a way to quiet one without tearing it apart? I might just replace it too.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Members online

Today's birthdays

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

Check Out The TRS Store


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Top