Is an unknown maintenance history non running 2.9 worth dealing with compared to an engine swap?

[pentode]

I'm definitely going to get a reputation as an old crank - but just trying to be the voice of reason. This isn't the first post lately mentioning deleting parts looking for more power/better efficiency. Pretty much every engine computer in the EFI era, 90s on for sure, was pretty carefully tuned to give maximum efficiency under all reasonable conditions. Any of you guys with extensive tuning experience please do correct me, but IMHO there aren't massive gains to be had with a deleted cat, a cold air intake and a tune. You might find a few horsepower, but you're not going to get 10 extra mpg running way too lean or 10 hp dumping a ton of fuel into it - it's just the laws of physics. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money on tuning only to be disappointed or just get back to where they started. Don't get me wrong, if you want to go forced induction then you can find ALL the power and you're going to need a lot of tuning - or if as you said you want to run high ethanol. And if you want to retrofit a carb car with fuel injection, something like a speeduino is the ticket. These are pretty big projects though.

Just don't delete your cat looking for performance... It's more headache than it's worth, again IMHO.

Edit : definitely not trying to be a buzzkill, and looking back at PetroleumJunkie's earlier posts, if there are gains to be made on older EFI, fair enough. I'd be curious exactly how much improvement is possible.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I'm definitely going to get a reputation as an old crank - but just trying to be the voice of reason. This isn't the first post lately mentioning deleting parts looking for more power/better efficiency. Pretty much every engine computer in the EFI era, 90s on for sure, was carefully tuned to give maximum efficiency under all reasonable conditions. Any of you guys with extensive tuning experience please do correct me, but IMHO there aren't massive gains to be had with a deleted cat, a cold air intake and a tune. You might find a few horsepower, but you're not going to get 10 extra mpg running way too lean or 10 hp dumping a ton of fuel into it - it's just the laws of physics. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money on tuning only to be disappointed or just get back to where they started. Don't get me wrong, if you want to go forced induction then you can find ALL the power and you're going to need a lot of tuning - or if as you said you want to run high ethanol. And if you want to retrofit a carb car with fuel injection, something like a speeduino is the ticket. These are pretty big projects though.

Just don't delete your cat looking for performance... It's more headache than it's worth, again IMHO.

Megasquirt on a 2.9 was fairly easy. I had three days into it, start to finish, with a diypnp adapter box. Not bad for a first try.

Hard disagree on the 2.9l 8DT box, at least. They were dogsh*t. Like absolutely terrible. They left a ton on the table, mostly because the computers were too crude compared to modern technology. Also because they did a terrible job tuning, just like they did with the SOHC. My first action with the 2.9l was to ditch the Ford sensors and upgrade to gm... much more refined tech. (Like who tf run a frequency based MAP sensor... tf wrong witchu...)

Also, OBD1 and standalone ecu do not have the ability to measure catalytic efficiency. I left mine on when I did my 2.9 to cut down on the smell.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I'm definitely going to get a reputation as an old crank - but just trying to be the voice of reason. This isn't the first post lately mentioning deleting parts looking for more power/better efficiency. Pretty much every engine computer in the EFI era, 90s on for sure, was pretty carefully tuned to give maximum efficiency under all reasonable conditions. Any of you guys with extensive tuning experience please do correct me, but IMHO there aren't massive gains to be had with a deleted cat, a cold air intake and a tune. You might find a few horsepower, but you're not going to get 10 extra mpg running way too lean or 10 hp dumping a ton of fuel into it - it's just the laws of physics. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money on tuning only to be disappointed or just get back to where they started. Don't get me wrong, if you want to go forced induction then you can find ALL the power and you're going to need a lot of tuning - or if as you said you want to run high ethanol. And if you want to retrofit a carb car with fuel injection, something like a speeduino is the ticket. These are pretty big projects though.

Just don't delete your cat looking for performance... It's more headache than it's worth, again IMHO.

Edit : definitely not trying to be a buzzkill, and looking back at PetroleumJunkie's earlier posts, if there are gains to be made on older EFI, fair enough. I'd be curious exactly how much improvement is possible.

So... I am going to correct you. Much love, tho.


All engines that run on regulated roads since the first emissions laws - all of them - are tuned for emissions, not power or fuel economy. From the early EEC boxes to the modern Copperhead PCM, they are tuned for tailpipe emissions. All of the modern tech since has been to get back fuel economy (also regulated) and to gain back power (sells cars). But your factory pcm with its factory abysmal tuning is set up to meet a federal or California emissions standard above all, followed by a federal fuel economy standard afterwards. Power is tuned for after all laws have been met.

The issue I'm currently fighting with the SOHC reflects this. Ford tuned it to run 14.68:1 afr at all times except WUE, WOT, decel, and for a split second during what ford laughably calls "power enrichment." Ford did this because peak catalytic efficiency is also at 14.68:1 on E0 fuel. Tuned for emissions - not economy or power.

Will you get an extra 10mpg? I mean, when I bought my 1988, it was getting 13mpg. When I fixed a bunch of crap, it went to 15mpg. After tuning, 18mpg to 24 highway. So, I gained significantly. Gained on power as well. I never did hit a dyno, but times on different hills I'd datalog on changed significantly.

So. Yes. EEC-IV is a pile of sh*t. It works when it works. It's also 40 years old on an 8 bit eprom chip with electrolytic capacitors.

YMMV, watch for uneven tire wear.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

I'm definitely going to get a reputation as an old crank - but just trying to be the voice of reason. This isn't the first post lately mentioning deleting parts looking for more power/better efficiency. Pretty much every engine computer in the EFI era, 90s on for sure, was pretty carefully tuned to give maximum efficiency under all reasonable conditions. Any of you guys with extensive tuning experience please do correct me, but IMHO there aren't massive gains to be had with a deleted cat, a cold air intake and a tune. You might find a few horsepower, but you're not going to get 10 extra mpg running way too lean or 10 hp dumping a ton of fuel into it - it's just the laws of physics. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money on tuning only to be disappointed or just get back to where they started. Don't get me wrong, if you want to go forced induction then you can find ALL the power and you're going to need a lot of tuning - or if as you said you want to run high ethanol. And if you want to retrofit a carb car with fuel injection, something like a speeduino is the ticket. These are pretty big projects though.

Just don't delete your cat looking for performance... It's more headache than it's worth, again IMHO.

Edit : definitely not trying to be a buzzkill, and looking back at PetroleumJunkie's earlier posts, if there are gains to be made on older EFI, fair enough. I'd be curious exactly how much improvement is possible.

Furthermore! Yes. There's more.

The 2.9 is a strange animal. It is not a truck engine.

I repeat. It is not, nor was it ever supposed to be a truck engine.

This is a 2.9 in standard naturally aspirated kit:

This is a 2.9 in DOHC twin turbo race kit:

Ford, in their infinite wisdom, took their eurosport performance V6 and decided to turn it into a drooling flesh puppet, then stuff it into a small pickup truck. A pox on ford, but more on that later.

2.9l was never supposed to be a truck engine. It was designed from the cologne v4 and 2.6l v6 to become a sports car engine as the 2.8l in the sunbeam alpine. The 2.9 was the efi version for Capri, ford Europe's rally car, and eventually the Sierra Cosworth, a car that won 80% of the races it entered. Yes, you read that right.

This is not a truck engine. Never was, never will be. The fact they put it in an ugly dress of an intake manifold to "improve torque" and put a usa legal pcm (read dogsh*t tune) and stuck it in a truck is typical ford behavior: corporate raiding and stupidity.

Ok. I'm done ranting and left a bunch of breadcrumbs for research and further questions about the euro stuff.

I'm going to go cuss about ford *a lot* under my breath now.

.....








.....fawk ford

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Daily driver. I think there's an ability to run 2 fuel/ignition maps? One for cruising and one for pulling loads, climbing hills, etc.

My primary concern is fuel mileage when not "working" the vehicle and taking advantage of removing things we're not supposed to talk about and better flowing intake and especially exhaust systems.

I'd also like to convert my vehicles with carburetors to fuel injection because of the crappy corn fuel we have now.

For a daily id just stick with the factory EEC IV.

Even my B2 gets 20 pretty easy with a 5sp.

Plus its eaiser just to keep it factory

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Furthermore! Yes. There's more.

The 2.9 is a strange animal. It is not a truck engine.

I repeat. It is not, nor was it ever supposed to be a truck engine.

This is a 2.9 in standard naturally aspirated kit:

View attachment 146974

This is a 2.9 in DOHC twin turbo race kit:

View attachment 146975


Ford, in their infinite wisdom, took their eurosport performance V6 and decided to turn it into a drooling flesh puppet, then stuff it into a small pickup truck. A pox on ford, but more on that later.

2.9l was never supposed to be a truck engine. It was designed from the cologne v4 and 2.6l v6 to become a sports car engine as the 2.8l in the sunbeam alpine. The 2.9 was the efi version for Capri, ford Europe's rally car, and eventually the Sierra Cosworth, a car that won 80% of the races it entered. Yes, you read that right.

This is not a truck engine. Never was, never will be. The fact they put it in an ugly dress of an intake manifold to "improve torque" and put a usa legal pcm (read dogsh*t tune) and stuck it in a truck is typical ford behavior: corporate raiding and stupidity.

Ok. I'm done ranting and left a bunch of breadcrumbs for research and further questions about the euro stuff.

I'm going to go cuss about ford *a lot* under my breath now.

.....








.....fawk ford

Even despite all that its still a damn good truck motor.

And those big tall pleniums are sexy

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Even despite all that its still a damn good truck motor.

Yes.

And those big tall pleniums are sexy

No.

The twin throttle bodies sound *so good* when they open. My 6.4L hemi doesn't even sound that good.

 

[pentode]

So... I am going to correct you. Much love, tho.


All engines that run on regulated roads since the first emissions laws - all of them - are tuned for emissions, not power or fuel economy. From the early EEC boxes to the modern Copperhead PCM, they are tuned for tailpipe emissions. All of the modern tech since has been to get back fuel economy (also regulated) and to gain back power (sells cars). But your factory pcm with its factory abysmal tuning is set up to meet a federal or California emissions standard above all, followed by a federal fuel economy standard afterwards. Power is tuned for after all laws have been met.

The issue I'm currently fighting with the SOHC reflects this. Ford tuned it to run 14.68:1 afr at all times except WUE, WOT, decel, and for a split second during what ford laughably calls "power enrichment." Ford did this because peak catalytic efficiency is also at 14.68:1 on E0 fuel. Tuned for emissions - not economy or power.

Will you get an extra 10mpg? I mean, when I bought my 1988, it was getting 13mpg. When I fixed a bunch of crap, it went to 15mpg. After tuning, 18mpg to 24 highway. So, I gained significantly. Gained on power as well. I never did hit a dyno, but times on different hills I'd datalog on changed significantly.

So. Yes. EEC-IV is a pile of sh*t. It works when it works. It's also 40 years old on an 8 bit eprom chip with electrolytic capacitors.

YMMV, watch for uneven tire wear.

I won't go too far out of my way to defend my position and I can't speak authoritatively to the tuning on old Ford ECUs.

What I was trying to say re: physics is that your displacement, compression ratio, and airflow through the heads are fixed - and I would argue the latter is the main bottleneck to efficiency on any engine. If you're going to run stoichiometric 14.7, your fuel economy and power are basically fixed. Sure, you can mess with that a little bit either direction but you run into major problems if you go too far either way (you did mention the smell ... Which is better than melted pistons or severe fuel dilution)

I'm all for tuning if you're into that, I just wouldn't encourage anyone to go down that road unless they wanted a new hobby.

 

[PetroleumJunkie412]

Electric motor whine in the beginning is a Volvo EPAS system powering up.

 

[MISWFL]

I'm definitely going to get a reputation as an old crank - but just trying to be the voice of reason. This isn't the first post lately mentioning deleting parts looking for more power/better efficiency. Pretty much every engine computer in the EFI era, 90s on for sure, was pretty carefully tuned to give maximum efficiency under all reasonable conditions. Any of you guys with extensive tuning experience please do correct me, but IMHO there aren't massive gains to be had with a deleted cat, a cold air intake and a tune. You might find a few horsepower, but you're not going to get 10 extra mpg running way too lean or 10 hp dumping a ton of fuel into it - it's just the laws of physics. I've seen guys spend a lot of time and money on tuning only to be disappointed or just get back to where they started. Don't get me wrong, if you want to go forced induction then you can find ALL the power and you're going to need a lot of tuning - or if as you said you want to run high ethanol. And if you want to retrofit a carb car with fuel injection, something like a speeduino is the ticket. These are pretty big projects though.

Just don't delete your cat looking for performance... It's more headache than it's worth, again IMHO.

Edit : definitely not trying to be a buzzkill, and looking back at PetroleumJunkie's earlier posts, if there are gains to be made on older EFI, fair enough. I'd be curious exactly how much improvement is possible.

I respectfully disagree on some of what you posted. I know for a fact that upgrades to mid 1980s to early 1990s VWs have very noticeable gains in both power and fuel mileage. Increasing the volumetric efficiency of an engine reduces pumping losses and gains both power and fuel mileage. OEM engines are built to be as cheap as possible #1, then to satisfy emissions, then to survive the warranty period, then to generate to required power and finally fuel economy.

A 1984 VW 1.8 US market engine ( big valves 8.5:1 ) has a crappy 4 into a 1 short highly restrictive exhaust manifold. A simple swap to a euro big wide flange dual exhaust manifold and the euro dual long tube down pipe ( factory non cat ), or the Techtonics Tuning mandrel bent dual down pipe or a long tube tri Y header, produces a dyno proven 5 HP gain without any other changes. The simple Bosch K Jetronic non electronic fuel injection system compensates for the higher volumetric efficiency. The simple one wire oxygen sensor system uses a frequency valve to adjust the fuel pressure which adjusts the amount the mechanical fuel injectors spray. I noticed at least a 1-2 MPG increase with the exhaust ( free flow muffler and no resonator as well ) changes. Add a bigger VW Fox intake manifold and throttle body and you get even more power and better throttle response. Add a cam and even more. Add HT/RD code 10:1 pistons and the 1985 & up stand alone knock sensor system and the engine really comes alive, especially on supreme fuel. IIRC you could easily turn a 90 HP mid compression 1.8 engine into a 125+ HP high compression one with simple bolt on mods, basically factory stuff as well. I bet 150+ is possible with a ported head ( non cross flow ) and a better fuel injection system.

I don't want to get the thread locked, but it's well known that older emissions parts cost both power and fuel economy. For the VW, all you have to do is compare the US and the euro versions to see. EGR is another thief, like power steering and needless excess weight. Modern engine management systems just do a better job of reducing and masking the losses. They are still there though.

 

[pentode]

I respectfully disagree on some of what you posted. I know for a fact that upgrades to mid 1980s to early 1990s VWs have very noticeable gains in both power and fuel mileage. Increasing the volumetric efficiency of an engine reduces pumping losses and gains both power and fuel mileage. OEM engines are built to be as cheap as possible #1, then to satisfy emissions, then to survive the warranty period, then to generate to required power and finally fuel economy.

A 1984 VW 1.8 US market engine ( big valves 8.5:1 ) has a crappy 4 into a 1 short highly restrictive exhaust manifold. A simple swap to a euro big wide flange dual exhaust manifold and the euro dual long tube down pipe ( factory non cat ), or the Techtonics Tuning mandrel bent dual down pipe or a long tube tri Y header, produces a dyno proven 5 HP gain without any other changes. The simple Bosch K Jetronic non electronic fuel injection system compensates for the higher volumetric efficiency. The simple one wire oxygen sensor system uses a frequency valve to adjust the fuel pressure which adjusts the amount the mechanical fuel injectors spray. I noticed at least a 1-2 MPG increase with the exhaust ( free flow muffler and no resonator as well ) changes. Add a bigger VW Fox intake manifold and throttle body and you get even more power and better throttle response. Add a cam and even more. Add HT/RD code 10:1 pistons and the 1985 & up stand alone knock sensor system and the engine really comes alive, especially on supreme fuel. IIRC you could easily turn a 90 HP mid compression 1.8 engine into a 125+ HP high compression one with simple bolt on mods, basically factory stuff as well. I bet 150+ is possible with a ported head ( non cross flow ) and a better fuel injection system.

I don't want to get the thread locked, but it's well known that older emissions parts cost both power and fuel economy. For the VW, all you have to do is compare the US and the euro versions to see. EGR is another thief, like power steering and needless excess weight. Modern engine management systems just do a better job of reducing and masking the losses. They are still there though.

I want to be clear here, not argumentative... Respectfully, I think you're basically agreeing with me and demonstrating my point. You mentioned volumetric efficiency. I completely agree that if you take a given engine, port the heads, change the camshaft, change the compression ratio and add long tube headers you can DEFINITELY gain efficiency . That was the exact point I was making, but looking at it from the opposite direction. If you _don't_ change any of those things, you can't gain more than a couple mpg or a couple horsepower just by playing with fuel trims.
If it's worth it to you to put the time, effort and money in for a few HP, more power to you. Or if you want to do a full port job on your 2.9 - or an engine swap, also good. My original point was just that deleting "certain emissions parts" on a 2.9 wasn't worth the trouble, mainly so less experienced people don't get the idea that it's a magic shortcut to HP. You get 1-2HP and a check engine light.

Edit: I'm trying to dispel the common misconception that exhaust restriction has a major impact on typical stock engines. Until you get into some serious porting and induction modifications, it really doesn't come into play.

Edit 2: also, my original comment wasn't directed specifically at you or your project... It's just that the subject has come up a few times recently

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I respectfully disagree on some of what you posted. I know for a fact that upgrades to mid 1980s to early 1990s VWs have very noticeable gains in both power and fuel mileage. Increasing the volumetric efficiency of an engine reduces pumping losses and gains both power and fuel mileage. OEM engines are built to be as cheap as possible #1, then to satisfy emissions, then to survive the warranty period, then to generate to required power and finally fuel economy.

A 1984 VW 1.8 US market engine ( big valves 8.5:1 ) has a crappy 4 into a 1 short highly restrictive exhaust manifold. A simple swap to a euro big wide flange dual exhaust manifold and the euro dual long tube down pipe ( factory non cat ), or the Techtonics Tuning mandrel bent dual down pipe or a long tube tri Y header, produces a dyno proven 5 HP gain without any other changes. The simple Bosch K Jetronic non electronic fuel injection system compensates for the higher volumetric efficiency. The simple one wire oxygen sensor system uses a frequency valve to adjust the fuel pressure which adjusts the amount the mechanical fuel injectors spray. I noticed at least a 1-2 MPG increase with the exhaust ( free flow muffler and no resonator as well ) changes. Add a bigger VW Fox intake manifold and throttle body and you get even more power and better throttle response. Add a cam and even more. Add HT/RD code 10:1 pistons and the 1985 & up stand alone knock sensor system and the engine really comes alive, especially on supreme fuel. IIRC you could easily turn a 90 HP mid compression 1.8 engine into a 125+ HP high compression one with simple bolt on mods, basically factory stuff as well. I bet 150+ is possible with a ported head ( non cross flow ) and a better fuel injection system.

I don't want to get the thread locked, but it's well known that older emissions parts cost both power and fuel economy. For the VW, all you have to do is compare the US and the euro versions to see. EGR is another thief, like power steering and needless excess weight. Modern engine management systems just do a better job of reducing and masking the losses. They are still there though.

Compare the 2.9s factory output to the output of similar era and size V6s...

It stacks up very well.

Personslly id get yours running and see what you think of it...it might just surprise you

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I'm sure the non running issue is something simple like a fuel pump or an ignition module. The guy who had it last was a dirt bag & idiot. I'm going to attempt to contact the prior owner before him and see what I can learn about the truck. It actually looks like a very decent truck. I didn't realize the cylinder head issue was resolved by then.

What's the approximate cost to rebuild or replace the transmission valve body? I assume there's a pan you can drop to get access to the valve body and band adjustments. What's the best quality and performing transmission cooler option available? I need one for my Hyundai Tucson as well. Traditional ATF to air cooler or ATF to coolant? I assume the OE radiator has a small transmission cooler in one of the tanks already? It might already have an auxiliary transmission cooler installed as well because it's got a tow hitch.

I think I spent about $250-300 on what I did with my A4LD. I’d have to find the list and I’m still trying to figure out how to put the video together and publish it, I have not great video footage of the entire bit of valve body work that I put into it.

I’m currently sinking money and a shift kit into my green Ranger, but that is a different transmission (4R70w). I’m hoping for a similar performance boost to what I got out of the A4LD, but this transmission also has more options and I went with the Stage 2 shift kit since one existed, lol.

 

[MISWFL]

I think I spent about $250-300 on what I did with my A4LD. I’d have to find the list and I’m still trying to figure out how to put the video together and publish it, I have not great video footage of the entire bit of valve body work that I put into it.

I’m currently sinking money and a shift kit into my green Ranger, but that is a different transmission (4R70w). I’m hoping for a similar performance boost to what I got out of the A4LD, but this transmission also has more options and I went with the Stage 2 shift kit since one existed, lol.

How do you tell if the transmission is ok and just needs the bands adjusted and the valve body work?

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

How do you tell if the transmission is ok and just needs the bands adjusted and the valve body work?

I dunno. Mine still shifted through the gears with no noise, but it was sluggish shifting, pretty sure slipping a bit, and reverse was slow to engage. I did the reverse servo O-rings and gasket while I had the pan open. Did the valve body stuff, new filter, new pan with a drain plug, new fluid. 2nd and 3rd bands are adjustable, and on the outside of the transmission. You need an inch/lb torque wrench and a tap socket of the correct size plus a wrench, then just follow adjustment procedure.

I did the air purge process of shifting through the gears and leaving it in each for like a minute a couple times and it still hiccuped air bubbles for about a month of driving. But it would smoke the tires off if you got on it more than half throttle from a stop and if you were railing on it with an empty bed it would chirp second. It didn’t jerk you around if you weren’t on it hard either. Never had an automatic work like that.