Mileage Monster Build

[mountaineergreen]

My only concern with the pulleys on your truck is you may need the extra cooling- with that kind of load on there all the time, and if you idle it often, you may experience overheating due to the slower water pump. That's just a maybe- I haven't had any problems with mine, but my 3.0 is lugging around a whole lot less truck.

I netted good results with an intake on my mountaineer- pending the price it may be worth it regardless.

I've always stuck with Motorcraft or Autolite plugs in mine and had good luck.

Really 16 MPG is pretty good with what your toting around.

You'd be amazed what a SCT X Cal III would do for your power and driveablity- I can recommend an excellent guy for this if you'd like.

 

[gmpreece]

What about an K&N Air filter? Will they help any or is this just hype?

 

[red2003xlt]

I'd actually guess the electric fan conversion is worth the most in terms of dollar per gallon improvement.

Relieving an engine of any parasitic drag....

 

[Big Jim M]

What about an K&N Air filter? Will they help any or is this just hype?

There was a nascar race today.. The cars ran 400 miles and the engines turned near NINE GRAND on every lap.. NONE of the cars use anything like a K&N filter.. Them engine builders KNOW they need to keep ALL dirt out of their engines.. K&N filters get their supposed gain from having larger HOLES in the filter... Larger holes equals larger particles of dirt entering the engine..
I choose to never use anything except oem type filters...just like the real racers.
Big JIm

 

[bobbywalter]

e fan and tune with good low resistance, lightest weight wheels and tires.


an economy tuner, or a on the fly tuning setup is ideal.



theres no debate about e fans. properly configured they are a win win.


most every oem is now equipped with them as they do increase mpg and take stress off the pump.. but they are expensive for the oe over mechanical/vis units.


they heaviest towing pickups today have high dollar electromechanical setups that essentially makes them e fans. and there is still improvement over them when swapped to electric. though these situations are complicated with the larger tow intentioned trucks.


when manually controlling my maf/map and timing i can get 17 out of my rig in steady cruise hiway, but its stressing the engine. big time stressing... generally when weighing @ 4800-6400 pounds i average 9-11 mpg city..thats on 33's and 456 gears with a 280(tune) hp smallblock.






















its always funny to see the "factory would do it arguments". most people can barely change thier oil let alone constantly mod thier vehicles for conditions due to a modification to FIT THIER PERSONAL NEEDS. a general setup is just that. and thats what you get from the dealer.

if a guy bought his 50 k dually to tow 8 tons or so 60 thousand miles a year, i would suggest a bigger intercooler oil cooler radiator and keep the factory fan.

if another guy uses his 50 thousand dollar diesel truck as a car, then e fans will gain 1-2 mpg easily. add to that a good tune and 3-4 mpg is real easy and common to get. and that is without pussyfooting.... and its not magic either. its just that trucks with those e fan and tuner mods are comprimised, and wont perform as well reletive to thier original design goals.. generally they were designed for towing 8 tons by any tom, dick, or sally living in anchorage or dallas.. but this use my 50 k truck as a car guy only tows jet skis, and dont need to tow 8 tons.

so...hey, the mods are livable. but they sure as hell are not for everybody. sure he gave up something, but he got something he could use better...24 mpg in his 4x4 crewcab duramax pimpmobile going 300 miles to a nasty beach. WITH THE AC ON .....at 75 mph....my fawking mark 7 wouldnt do that...and it beats the hell out of the tempo getting 24 mpg with no ac

 

[cabletech]

bobby,

Thanks for your obvious thought on the question. E-fan is becoming a will do thing. I'm getting ready to go to work now. I'm gonna fill up and try to keep the truck in it's happy place at around 3000 rpm and see what happens.

 

[bobbywalter]

in your case the e fans may not do too much.



depends on what it will cost ya as to whether i would suggest doing it. if the factory clutch is going, then i would do it for sure.


to run a smaller fan unit or a larger taurus type unit here with a factory controller and mustang type(early 4 cyl) temp switch to turn it on is less then 25 bux in general if you can find it. thing is the big taurus fans dont fit too well in stock applications. when i get after it off road they rub my waterpump, and i have have lightly damaged a radiator before in one serious situation..so with a regular fan the radiator would have been completely destroyed. i run hyundai fans too and liked them on the 2.9's.


a custom tune and driving as easy as possible with lowest resistance tires available properly aired up will be best for a strained 3.0. and 16 avg working the truck is real good imo.


that or dropping a good overseas diesel in there. i myself have to go to a diesel cause its too costly to use my rig as is...


and this is my idea of lightly loaded...

 

[mountaineergreen]

I ordered enough synthetic oils to change everything- rear diff, transmission and engine. I am going to do a 1 year/ 25K mile interval, change the oil filter on 5k intervals.

I had a pretty good mileage run going, but my wife drove my truck 60 miles today and ruined my average . Driving style definitely affects mileage with these motors,.you have to keep those RPM's up for optimum economy.

 

[mountaineergreen]

I got 21.6 from my tank that the wife finished out yesterday. Not too bad, but I think I could have been 25 or so.

An add on cruise control kit is on the way also- those longer highway trips really stink with no cruise.

I looked on here about adding factory style cruise- way too involved for me to take on. I don't want to pull my dash, it'd rattle for ever after that.

 

[AllanD]

I disagree about this part. I can hold my rig in 2nd at 50MPH at 5k RPMs and be around 15 inches of vacuum, or if I drop to 4th at the same speed around 2100RPM I'm at 10 inches of vacuum, I'm obviously getting better milage in 4th than 2nd. Vacuum guages help to an extent but they shouldn't be followed exclusivly.

don't take an extreem over the top point to disagree with reality.

And YOUR rig has what, a 2.9 engine and 5000rpm is over it's
power peak by 400rpm.

I bought my '92 Ranger because it gets better MPG than an '88 E350 with a 351 and C6. It needs tires and I'm looking at buying 15" rims (14" on it now) so that I can mount tires that are larger in diameter thus dropping the cursing RPM.

Before I spend the money, please explain to me how a 3.0 geared for 3000 RPM at say 75 MPH is going to get better mileage than a 3.0 geared for 2300 RPM at 75 MPH. As long as the engine is not lugging at 2300 RPM @ 75 MPH, how can it not get better MPG??

My stock tires are 215/70/14. The engine turns 2522 RPM at 75 MPH. Looking at mounting 215/75/15 thus giving 2354 RPM at 75 MPH. A drop of 168 RPM. If lowering RPMs did not give better MPG, nobody would be making OD transmissions.

Thanks.
Dave

Dave,
Rpm is not a be-all, End-All.
Nor is Manifold vacuum.

what you need to remember is tha tthe fuel mapping built into the computer that actually runs the engine isn't immediatly "transparent" to the average driver/tinkerer.

You've gotta trust the people whove taken the time to play with the engines out on the road, and not insist on a detailed mathematical explanation of "why"

some of are simply gonna tell you "what" and why can be left
hiding with it's mysterious nature unrevealed.

there are many things in life and reality that are counter-intuative

Just because it doen't make sense doesn't make it untrue.

the 3.0 likes to spin.


hell the 2.9 kinda likes to spin, mileage doesn't seem to change much between 2800rpm and 3200rpm with a 2.9 engine
the 3.0 is a significantly revvy engine.

The simple facts are that the engine was DESIGNED for a taurus
with shorter gears AND smaller tires and yet make highway speeds.
the engine was NOT fundementally redesigned before it was dropped into a Ranger.

It simply is what it is.

Yes, revving an engine less reduces fuel consumption IF the engine is designed to operate at those lower rpms. the 3.0 isn't.

while it isn't a Formula1 engine it isn't a marine diesel engine either.

Each engine has it's "happy zone", and a 3.0 isn't going to reward you with it's "Best" much below 2900-3000rpm.
Because it isn't a 4.9 L6 which IS "happy" at 2000-2400rpm.

Hell the 4.0 likes running below 2400rpm.

I also wonder how people actually believe that underdrive pullies "help".

I know that spinning your alternator, P/S pump and A/C compressore slower does next to nothing, because the drag of the alternator isn't directly related to it's rpm.
It's related to field strength, and if you spin it slower the voltage regulator will simply turn up the field current to compensate.
The P/S pump? it's freewheeling most of the time (until the steering is deflected)
A/C compressor? spinning it more slowly simply changes
the duty cycle to maintain pressure at the switches.
(Cycling clutch system)

As for removing the mechanical fan reducing stress on the water pump? Nope.
Primary stress on the water pump bearings comes not from the fan but from belt tension.

Most CARS have electric fans because it's impractical to put mechanical fans on a transverse engine FWD car.

AD

 

[Big Jim M]

After reading some of these posts, I'm begenning to wonder why the trannys have high gear? If rpm's are so economical why not run in 3rd? Or for that matter NEVER shift out of low gear?
The Suburban I purchased Saturday for my wife has a six gear automatic in it.. Should I shut down the highest 3 or 4 gears and run the rpm up to the six grand red line?
I think NOT!
Big JIm

 

[AllanD]

It's not about rpm as much as it is about "load"

The blanket statement that revving lower reduces friction and thus
fuel consumption is subject to the basic flaw of all blanket statements,
it is a generalization.

If you DESIGN an engine to operate at low rpm it will operate most efficiently
at the low rpm it is DESIGNED for (examples? 4.0OHV, 4.9 L6, 7.5 V8)

the 3.0 isn't.

the basic "rev it less" doesn't take into account the minimum rpm to achieve stable airflow in the cylinder head ports (anyone who doesn't grasp WHY a 3.0 is a "Revvier" engine than a 2.9 just needs to be shown a head off each engine)

Anyone needing to know the same thing about a 4.0 would be best served comparing the relative intake port to exhaust port size on a 2.9 Vs a 4.0.

Each engine has a prefered operating rpm range, running it slower
is almost as bad as running it too fast.

It's really about brake specific fuel curve.
Basically in certain rpm regions the engine produces more power from
the specific ammount of fuel burned and that rpm is the rpm where
the engine is going to produce best economy.
and that specific operating range isn't subject to contrary opinions
it is what it is and cares less about contrary ideas than I do.

It is what it is.


Now as for "Gears" the idea of the transmission is to provide reduction gears
and overdrive is inferior to a 1:1 gear, there is inherent friction in overdrive gears
but it's a trade off against the friction inherent

I'd rather have five gears than four even if the fifth one is an overdrive gear.
It makes a grabbier axle ratio more tolerable on the highway.

Granted the same effect could be created with a "granny gear" in the transmission
but if you actually look at the transmission gears you soon discover there is a practical limit to how small you can make the 1st gear spur on the cluster gear.. and that small diameter gear is relatively fragile.

I can make the blanket statement that on a 2wd 4.0 with stock sized
tires (225/70-15's) 4.10's are about right.
a 2.9 is "happy" with 4.10's and 235/75-15 tires.
a 4.0 with 4.10s and 235/75-15's is geared "too short"


The combination of gears should be chosen to operate the engine in it's
own "happy zone" at the cruising speed you want or need to travel at.

If I wanted to cruise at 55-60 the 4.10's behind my 4.0 would be fine.
The 2.9 was revvier and was entirely happy cruising at 70-75mph with
those gears (26mpg in a 2.9 supercab on 235/75's with the A/C running is
hard to argue with)

I can accept the 22mpg I get with my 4.0, I just want to get that 22mpg at
a slightly higher road speed than the 65mph I can do now with my 4.10's
So the 4.10's have gotta go infavor of 3.73's.
I know from experience (my brother's 1990 supercab) that an identical combination with 3.55's is too far the other way.

The whole object is to find a way to make everything "happy" at the same time.

Tune the truck, Tires, gears, etc to work together with HOW the truck
is ACTUALLY used.



AD

AD

 

[mountaineergreen]

Well, I tried the 4th thing for a tank of fuel- running near 60 @ 2900 RPM for the biggest part of the tank, I got 19.6 MPG. Running 62 in 5th I average 22+ MPG. It's all about running the "sweet spot" of the engine is the key. My particular truck it seems to be a bit under 3000 RPM.

I put full synthetic in my rear axle and transmission, the trans oil was really dark and nasty looking. I put Royal Purple Syncromax in the trans and MaxGear in the rear diff. The transmission really does feel better, time will tell if it helps MPG.

Cruise will go in ASAP.

 

[bobbywalter]

As for removing the mechanical fan reducing stress on the water pump? Nope.
Primary stress on the water pump bearings comes not from the fan but from belt tension.

Most CARS have electric fans because it's impractical to put mechanical fans on a transverse engine FWD car.

AD

in general i would agree. my driving style had more to do with tearing up belts and pumps then anything. never changed the driving style, but went electric and quit tearing shit up. same with pullies, its on where your gonna be running. pullies are really for racing. high rpm applications.


as to e fans, since @ 95 or so rear drive and some truck applications are all going to them, or some sort of combination electro hydro/mech clutch setup.

and it is purely from better all around performance and emmision/mpg/nvh benefits.

 

[rocket5979]

I also wonder how people actually believe that underdrive pullies "help".

I know that spinning your alternator, P/S pump and A/C compressore slower does next to nothing, because the drag of the alternator isn't directly related to it's rpm.
It's related to field strength, and if you spin it slower the voltage regulator will simply turn up the field current to compensate.
The P/S pump? it's freewheeling most of the time (until the steering is deflected)
A/C compressor? spinning it more slowly simply changes
the duty cycle to maintain pressure at the switches.
(Cycling clutch system)

Just because those items are in freewheel doesn't mean that there isn't power being consumed by spinning them faster than necessary. Doing the spin with the fingers test isn't the approach that will give you any real clue as to what kind of power can be saved by doing UDP's. While those pulleys feel light, it becomes a different story when spinning them to a few thousand rpms. In addition to that allot of UDP's get their underdrive ratio primarily from a smaller crank pulley. Once again that is allot of rotational mass that is saved from being driven by the crank. The proof is in the pudding. Dyno a vehicle before and after doing UDP's and see how much more power makes it to the wheels. More power that is free to drive the rear wheels versus engine accessories equals a more fuel efficient setup as well. Some vehicles do not become candidates for UDP's simply because they may either have cooling issues or idle charging issues if the pulley ratio becomes too small. Others make great candidates.