throttle body

[Rangerman87]

I read on some guys page that shaving the inside lip on the throttle body and shaving the butterfly will bump up power a little bit,is it true or just a waste?

 

[IMenriched]

I read on some guys page that shaving the inside lip on the throttle body and shaving the butterfly will bump up power a little bit,is it true or just a waste?

Prolly not the best money spent...the 2.9 in stock form is going to give ya about all the ponies it can.

Unless one gets completely wild/insane with a rebuild...the funds required to get more out of this power plant would also be insane...more so even.

its not a bad little unit...don't get me wrong...there is just only so much you can expect. Just for dollars spent on little things like this....the yeild of power gain is... Oh so insignificant.

If you're looking for more power, try different gearing (ie 4:10) for better seat of the pants response.

if your looking for truely more HP, a engine swap to more cubes is the what you'll be more happier with and for the $$$ spent will be , in all likelyhood, be less.

 

[Rangerman87]

Thanks.I really didn't spend too much money on the tb.I just want to do little things to boost up the power to help with driving up a hill I drive everyday.The hill(better known as Hwy 18) is one of the steepest in cali for the shortest amount of time,3,000-7,000 ft in 30 min,so I just need a wee bit more power.I'm not looking for 200 ponies 'cause it ain't gonna happen,just a little more is all.How would 4.10's work w/235's?

 

[AllanD]

Messing with the TB won't increase power because the
engine is only going to draw the air it needs and even the
slightly smaller '88-92 Throttle body supplies more air than
the engine needs

you understand the principle of the weakest link in the chain,
or the point of greatest restriction?

You can build an eight lane superhighway for the air to
flow through, but if there's a red traffic light or a construction zone
traffic is going to slow to a crawl.

The simple fact is that a 2.9 is only 177cubic inches
There is only so much that much engine can do.

are there other engines that make more power on the
same or smaller displacement? Yes, there are, but none
of them make as much torque 170ft/lb at as low an rpm
2600rpm

that all being said the 2.9 cubic inch for cubic inch makes
more power than a 5.0HO and about the same power per
cubic inch as a 351 Lightning which is almost exactly twice the size.

but the lightning has to rev more to make it's torque and power.

As I've said hundreds of times before what you ask for is "power"
but what you REALLY want is "torque", most people don't know
the difference.

Contrary to popular opinion in the V8 swap forum
most people who go from a 2.9 to a 4.0 DO NOT say:
"Wow, but I coulda had a V8!"

Many people who ride in a properly setup 4.0 truck THINK
that it's got a V8 in it...

Try driving mine, an '87 4x4 supercab with a 1993 4.0 engine
with Borla headers and you'd think it was a V8...

AD

 

[IMenriched]

Thanks.I really didn't spend too much money on the tb.I just want to do little things to boost up the power to help with driving up a hill I drive everyday.The hill(better known as Hwy 18) is one of the steepest in cali for the shortest amount of time,3,000-7,000 ft in 30 min,so I just need a wee bit more power.I'm not looking for 200 ponies 'cause it ain't gonna happen,just a little more is all.How would 4.10's work w/235's?

Yeah what AllenD said...+10

a higher numerical gears in the axles will put the engine at a higher rpm...thus bringing the torque back into the picture for when your going down the road...er... up that infamious hill. the 2.9 will be happier for the bit more RPM's...making it not work as hard...or feel boggy as you put it..

What you'll prolly really notice is that it'll have more zip off the line and getting up to speed...with less throttle....depending on how you drive.

 

[Rangerman87]

Thanks for the info and if I had the funds I'd drop in a 4.0,I drove my buddies '05 ranger and the 4.0 had plenty of balls to it.I'm trying to get a commuter vehicle and give the pimp mobile a break and work on it.How much power and torque would the tom morana 3.5 stroker produce?

 

[IMenriched]

Thanks for the info and if I had the funds I'd drop in a 4.0,I drove my buddies '05 ranger and the 4.0 had plenty of balls to it.I'm trying to get a commuter vehicle and give the pimp mobile a break and work on it.How much power and torque would the tom morana 3.5 stroker produce?

If your patient...you might be able to find one in JY fairly reasonable.

as far as the tom morana 3.5 stroker goes...talk to them directly for better answers.

 

[holyford86]

basically when you buy a stroker kit you are doing exactly what ford did to make the 4.0 minus the widening the block and raising the deck height. A 4.0 swap would be a much more cost effective way to gain power.

 

[Rangerman87]

Thanks.On average,how long do swaps usaually take?,and that includes having everything needed.One more question holyford86,how does the 2.9 in your truck do with the 33's and 6 in lift?just wonderin'!

 

[holyford86]

if you can get the wiring figured out before you drop it in it wouldn't be bad, or if you are proficient with wiring and have some good diagrams it would help you out. I'd say if you do your homework you could pull it off in a weekend and have time to spare. My truck isn't too bad with the lift and bigger tires, I'm running 4.10 gears and I usually keep it below 50mph. It's no speed demon though, It will not spin tires on pavement, period. It's got a locker and the axlewrap is horrendous when you try. I just converted it to MAF over the weekend and was rewarded with better throttle response, and better driveability below 1500 rpm which has helped out tremendously.

 

[Psychopete]

I just converted it to MAF over the weekend and was rewarded with better throttle response, and better driveability below 1500 rpm which has helped out tremendously.

FWIW, It took me 7 hours to pull my 2.9L with only hand tools - start to finish. The first time was much longer because of rusted bolts. Add 2-3 for the transmission whether you pull it with it or without it attached to the engine. I tend to separate them because it is less destructive (but could save some time if attached, the bellhousing bolts can be tricky to access). That trans cross member can bit a PITA if the bolts are siezed. Just a heads up/estimate on what it took me from a "I'm not a mechanic" point of view.

It would probably take me 2 or 3 weekends to complete IMO. I'll usually go in and replace bad bushings or anything else that is convenient while I am there. I like to be very thorough and try to lean away from "quick" work arounds to problems. I've bought too many cars where the PO did something that caused me a major pain later on. My most recent run-in was a CV boot constructed of duct tape on my Tempo, fixed it when I had to the steering knuckle removed for wheel bearing replacement. Take you time, do it right, it will pay off later on.

Pete

 

[holyford86]

The only problem I had with the install was getting the red locking tab out of the EEC connector, the tab you push on from the back of the connector had been broken off. I had one code after driving it for a day or so, Code #41; bank 1 lean (according to a snap-on 2500 scanner). I am going to swap in the newer EEC connector out of my wiring donor and install a check engine light, So I don't have to keep guessing when I might have codes by feel. I just used the stock 2.9 MAF when I did it and even though it is quite tiny, I have no loss of power whatsoever from the small size. It did feel a bit funny popping the pins for the MAP sensor out of the EEC connector though. I went to the JY and pulled the entire MAF harness off of a 91 4.0 , right back to the pins in the EEC, Its a pain to get it out of the harness to use it but it eliminates quite a headache when installing it in the 2.9 truck. The write up on it was very well written and only left me a bit puzzled on one thing.

 

[Psychopete]

FWIW, I think I would have had much better results using the 2.9L MAF instead of the 3.8L that's recommended in the article in the technical library. I was also under the impression that the MAP sensor also functioned as a barometric pressure sensor, so I left it connected electrically, but removed the vacuum line from the intake and sensor.

LOL, I ended up digging the red piece out very carefully with my finger nails and a very thin blade screw driver. And I did the same for the pins, except pulled it out of a T-Bird harness, removing all that tape and loom crap did get really redundant. Cool to hear about another successful swap, it really is a pretty strait forward conversion. I also battled a code 41 for a little while and I found a vacuum leak between my upper and lower manifolds and found that I didn't have the computer all the way back in the harness (woops ). Might take some time to track it down...

Pete

 

[AllanD]

When I did my 2.9>4.0 swap I was going from an '87 Ranger supercab
to the harness from a 1993 explorer...

Yeah it was the hard way of doing things but I actually wanted that
big relay and fuse box under the hood..., I also ended up adding
another smaller relay box to the radiator support on the drivers side.

I wanted the late model power distribution system if only to eliminate
all the failure prone fuseable links and replace them with maxi fuses.

The "other" small relay box was for my taillights and rear running lights
so they were running off relays (three of them) to seperate the "load"
from the switches.

See, what I was trying to accomplish was to not only "run",
but be "neat and orderly"

After I finished the wiring and checked everything three seperate
times and had a friend go over the diagrams and my own handwritten
notes to confirm that I had done thins the way we planned to
before we connected a battery and started (one circuit at a time)
installing fuses and verifying that power was going where it was
supposed to go and that nothing had been cross-connected.

Amazingly the electrical problems were non-exsistant
(when you label each wire with a handwritten plastic flag...)
EXCEPT for one ground screw that simply wasn't tightened
(The main EEC ground next to the PCM

It wasn't a simple "engine swap" but a complete rewiring
with components that had never been designed to go together...

The whole wiring process took me an expert mechanic
three weeks, but mostly because I was being meticulous
and keeping an unemployed (by choice) friend who is also
a mechanic busy double checking everything while I did it.

If we hadn't been frequently distracted by the lure of cold
beer on a warm late summer day and the "other" project that
was ongoing, we were also building an F250 4x4 literally from
"leftover" parts from two other projects, it could have gone
much faster, but for those "distractions"

I'm sure it could have been slammed together
like my friend wanted me to do it, but I'm equally sure
that by spending my time while building it I saved myself
time trouble shooting problems later.

ALL my connections were made with the hot glue filled
heat shrink filled butt-splices, they are expensive but well worth it.

ALL my connections were made in two tightly defined areas
so if I have a splice problem I basically know it's in one of two spots.

And when it was all done I wrapped it in split loom and wrapped it all
in cloth harness tape.


AD

 

[holyford86]

FWIW, I think I would have had much better results using the 2.9L MAF instead of the 3.8L that's recommended in the article in the technical library. I was also under the impression that the MAP sensor also functioned as a barometric pressure sensor, so I left it connected electrically, but removed the vacuum line from the intake and sensor.

LOL, I ended up digging the red piece out very carefully with my finger nails and a very thin blade screw driver. And I did the same for the pins, except pulled it out of a T-Bird harness, removing all that tape and loom crap did get really redundant. Cool to hear about another successful swap, it really is a pretty strait forward conversion. I also battled a code 41 for a little while and I found a vacuum leak between my upper and lower manifolds and found that I didn't have the computer all the way back in the harness (woops ). Might take some time to track it down...

Pete

All of the trucks of the same vintage that are MAF setups don't have MAP sensors. Mine runs great without it and I don't get codes for it KOEO, KOER, or CM. I hear no pinging at all, The only thing that had me stymied with the O2 sensor was a slight difference in the wiring, the 87 harness that i have in my truck has a 3 wire O2 sensor and the 90 wiring diagram I have shows a 4 wire.

I'm using wiring diagrams from Snap-On shopkey 5.

in the 87 setup there is a wire labeled "HEGOG" (O2 sensor ground ?) and it goes from EEC pin #49- chassis ground

in the 90 setup pin number 49 is also labeled "HEGOG" and it goes from EEC pin # 49 right to O2 sensor but first it goes to a junction which goes back to EEC pin # 46 labeled "SIG RTN"(signal return?)

It says in the write up that some 86 trucks had 3 wire o2 sensors and you need to jumper pin # 49 to pin #46 but it was kind of cryptic in the way it was explained. I can send you jpegs of the wiring diagrams if that helps any.

Sorry for the thread hijack though.