What did you do to your Ranger today? (Part Deux!)

[Uncle Gump]

I vote we allow cheeky OR snarky. But you can't be both at the same time or you get banned.

All in favor say...

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I vote we allow cheeky OR snarky. But you can't be both at the same time or you get banned.

All in favor say...

No. Absolutely not.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

No. Absolutely not.

It was violent and i have light bulb guts everywhere...

 

[Uncle Gump]

All in favor say... No. Absolutely not.

 

[Bill]

I finally got around to checking the brakes to see if they need anything. They are in good shape, but I'm still going to replace the semi-metallic pads with ceramic because I'm tired of the brake dust. Since I've put just under 4,000 miles on the blend of different brands and weights of oil I decided to do an oil change. I have this thing about starting the summer with fresh oil for the hot weather here . I investigated a ticking noise that appears shortly after starting it when cold, then changes to a sound something like marbles when things are warmed up. I think it is an exhaust leak where the upstream cat is bolted to the manifold. I tested out the OBD2 bluetooth scanner I ordered to assist diagnosing the revving between shifting gears. Nothing obvious came up. Vacuum is at 21.5 - 22.5 in. at sea level and about 20.5 -21.5 at 2,000 feet elevation. I can't find any vacuum leaks in any of the hoses, but the PCV hose appears to be slightly soft from age, but not at the point of collapsing. I can't find one online, but I'll order a replacement when I do. TPS appears to be OK, and the MAF is reading 2.3 -2.9 g/s at idle. I think the windy conditions was causing the air pressure and temperature to fluctuate, thus causing the inconsistent reading. I'll check it out again if it isn't windy tomorrow. It would be nice to have a chart that shows exactly how much air the engine sucks in at various RPMs so I can verify I'm getting the correct readings from the MAF. I also bought a replacement gasket for the throttle body just to make sure this issue isn't from an old gasket.

 

[Ranger850]

What if it's " Cheeky and/or Snarky"

The "slash" makes them interchangeable

 

[Curious Hound]

I think cheeky and snarky should be allowed for simultaneous use. There are times that desperately call for it.

And, I believe he proved that splattered is a very descriptive term for what happened.

 

[Curious Hound]

It would be nice to have a chart that shows exactly how much air the engine sucks in at various RPMs

Isn't that a simple calculation of how much air per revolution X the # revolutions per minute? Maybe divide by 4 because it takes 4 revolutions to put every cylinder through a full cycle?

Mine's a 3.0l. How big is yours?

 

[scotts90ranger]

I have an equation at work for airflow based on rpm but you need to include volumetric efficiency (basically engine load, less load is less airflow, not quite that simple but hey...) to be accurate, I'll see if I remember at lunch time... that said using the math to check the MAF would be hard... Also your engine doesn't have a MAP sensor so the vacuum reading is calculated from the MAF I believe.

 

[Roert42]

I think cheeky and sparky should be allowed for simultaneous use. There are times that desperately call for it.

I always thought sparkys were more snarky then cheeky.

 

[Curious Hound]

I always thought sparkys were more snarky then cheeky.

Dang spell check got me. I fixed it.

But, as a licensed sparky, I can tell you cheeky and snarky are both heavily applied by many of us.

(Spell check did it again. But I noticed this time.)

 

[Bill]

Isn't that a simple calculation of how much air per revolution X the # revolutions per minute? Maybe divide by 4 because it takes 4 revolutions to put every cylinder through a full cycle?

Mine's a 3.0l. How big is yours?

Roughly, it is based on displacement. A 4.0 will suck in twice as much air as a 2.0. There are other factors that come into play. Elevation - air is thinner at higher elevations, so that would reduce the amount of air pulled through the intake. Cold air is denser than warm air, so temperature has an effect. That's one of the reasons air temperature is measured at the intake. And at higher engine speeds the intake plumbing could potentially reduce the amount of air moving through the intake due to friction. That isn't going to be much of a factor for a 2.3 l engine. I came across a chart with various Ford engines that had the specifications for all this, but I'm unable to find it.

 

[Bill]

I have an equation at work for airflow based on rpm but you need to include volumetric efficiency (basically engine load, less load is less airflow, not quite that simple but hey...) to be accurate, I'll see if I remember at lunch time... that said using the math to check the MAF would be hard... Also your engine doesn't have a MAP sensor so the vacuum reading is calculated from the MAF I believe.

It has a MAP sensor. I think most engines have a MAP sensor now as it assists with engine management at different elevations and as a backup for limp mode if the TPS or the MAF quits working.

 

[ekrampitzjr]

Roughly, it is based on displacement. A 4.0 will suck in twice as much air as a 2.0. There are other factors that come into play. Elevation - air is thinner at higher elevations, so that would reduce the amount of air pulled through the intake. Cold air is denser than warm air, so temperature has an effect. That's one of the reasons air temperature is measured at the intake. And at higher engine speeds the intake plumbing could potentially reduce the amount of air moving through the intake due to friction. That isn't going to be much of a factor for a 2.3 l engine. I came across a chart with various Ford engines that had the specifications for all this, but I'm unable to find it.

I think EricBPhoto just wants a rough idea of how much air an engine would be expected to suck in. The very quick and dirty formula for liters per minute is simply (displacement/4) x rpm. The divisor of 4 accounts for the 4–stroke engine that pulls in air only during one stroke.

This formula makes a lot of assumptions, especially 100% volumetric efficiency and ignoring fuel intake, air temperature, and elevation. But we just want some rough numbers, right? So a Ranger 4–liter V-6 at 2000 rpm would take in (4/4) x 2000 = 2000 liters per minute. At sea level, air weighs about 1.2 grams per liter, so this would be 2.4 kg per minute, or about 5.2 pounds of air per minute. In 60 minutes that's over 300 pounds of air. If you're revving at 4000 rpm for the whole hour, the engine sucks in over 600 pounds of air.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bill]

I think EricBPhoto just wants a rough idea of how much air an engine would be expected to suck in. The very quick and dirty formula for liters per minute is simply (displacement/4) x rpm. The divisor of 4 accounts for the 4–stroke engine that pulls in air only during one stroke.

This formula makes a lot of assumptions, especially 100% volumetric efficiency and ignoring fuel intake, air temperature, and elevation. But we just want some rough numbers, right? So a Ranger 4–liter V-6 at 2000 rpm would take in (4/4) x 2000 = 2000 liters per minute. At sea level, air weighs about 1.2 grams per liter, so this would be 2.4 kg per minute, or about 5.2 pounds of air per minute. In 60 minutes that's over 300 pounds of air. If you're revving at 4000 rpm for the whole hour, the engine sucks in over 600 pounds of air.

Hope this helps.

I used the formula from this website after correcting the mathematical syntax: https://www.motor.com/magazinepdfs/082010_05.pdf

800 rpm ÷ 2 (for 4-stroke cycle) ÷ 60 seconds in a minute = 6.67 power cycles per second

6.67 (2.261L x 1.184 grams per liter) X 15% Volumetric Efficiency = 2.68 grams of air per second (g/s.)

My scanner is showing 2.3-2.9 g/s.. I don't know if that amount of fluctuation is normal at a steady idle, or if the windy weather is doing it. Air pressure fluctuates in windy conditions. However, it does appear that the calculated values are somewhat in the middle of what the MAF is reporting.