Underdrive crank pulley - power results - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 12-30-2006
blackbetty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: aurora, ontario, CANADA
Posts: 904
alright well after doing some readin on this thread i came to the obvious conclusion that the undrive drive pulley is a great mod to get hp lol, now i dont mean to jack this thread but how much HP, TQ and throttle response could you get from adding a larger throttle body? has anyone added a new larger TB on their truck?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-30-2006
RHuckster's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lake Elsinore, Ca.
Posts: 643
From what I've read on the forums its useless unless you're SC or turbo'd.

Rick
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-30-2006
blackbetty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: aurora, ontario, CANADA
Posts: 904
really? damn that sucks, i was planning on gettin one cuz it looks like a good way to get some extra hp, but i guess not. at least it saves me two hundred some odd dollars to get the underdrive pulley
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-30-2006
jtslmn720's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kent State, Kent Ohio
Posts: 7,367
yea if i remember right the size of our throttle body is so small it doesnt matter
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-30-2006
blackbetty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: aurora, ontario, CANADA
Posts: 904
wuts the size of the stock throttle body?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-30-2006
ScottG's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lewiston, Maine
Posts: 4,926
you do realize this post is on a SOHC and you have the OHV right?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-30-2006
blackbetty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: aurora, ontario, CANADA
Posts: 904
umm if thats what the 92 ranger 4.0 is then no i didnt know. sorry ill stop.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-30-2006
ScottG's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lewiston, Maine
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbetty
umm if thats what the 92 ranger 4.0 is then no i didnt know. sorry ill stop.

no its ok, its just i dont want people giving you input about the wrong engine


a 01+ is a sohc 4.0
00 and under (including your 92) is a ohv 4.0
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-30-2006
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Here is a little more info that I found a bit informative.

I data logged the battery voltage at idle in the driveway after a 45 minute drive. In the picture I've noted what was on at the time. All measurements taken at 700 rpm idle, and when I say "everything on".. I meant that if it was electrical.. it was on.

Rich


Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-31-2006
blackbetty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: aurora, ontario, CANADA
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gay-briel
no its ok, its just i dont want people giving you input about the wrong engine


a 01+ is a sohc 4.0
00 and under (including your 92) is a ohv 4.0

oh ok thats cool then , i thought i was gettin sh** for posting in the wrong thread or somthing. but yea its a 4.0 ohv, i think its in my siggy if not, then it will be.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-31-2006
TORQUERULES's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ripley, WV
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl
The first graph had the following mods: CAI & no fan.
The second graph was identical except for the addition of the ASP underdrives. I did put the e-fan on.. but it was not wired. So from a power consumption standpoint the ONLY difference was the underdrives. I had only driven 12 miles between the two pulls and the DA (density altitude) was nearly identical at -860ft. Oh and just for the record all these pulls were made on the exact same stretch of freeway to help eliminate any varyable from hills and wind.

The torque curve appears to be flat because up until about 3200 rpms there is a period of non-lock up in the torque convertor. *IF* I could lock the convertor all the way from a very low rpm then you'd see the normal torque curve associated with most graphs. You can clearly see the actual lock up in the dip of the HP line. To be fair a guy would have to ignore the data below about 3600rpms. Numbers could be effected just by how quickly the convertor is locking up.

Whilest I am measuring TQ numbers that are low as compaired to advertised by ford... This method is known to be very accurate when measured on at least 4 other ford products. (autotap with ford enhanced package) My numbers are also consistant with a friends 04 FX4. I believe these measurements to be correct and accurate. Even if they are somehow not accurate as a base line.. the change in power measured I think to be right on the money. This has held true on other fords I've measured as well.

I did not loose torque. I gained torque accross the board. Autotap only captures 20 points per second. And since this is time based capture.. its very hard to make a accurate graph overlay. The limited amount of points also make for a choppy graph IMO.

My summary.. this mod is worth the money. The e-fan though would really depend on how you use the truck. I happen to have one laying around.. and I'm a paved road daily driver w/a lite right foot. So for me I hope to gain milage more than anything.

My measurements here are not conclusive in of themselves. These posts from me are nothing more than a reality check for the ranger community. IMO anytime I can see some actual measurements it's worth more than popular perception.

When I do the exhaust and maybe a programmer.. I'll report the same measurements.

Regards,
Rich

What CAI? I didn't think they made one for the newer 4.0s with the slot-in MAF element (no separate MAF housing). So is it a Mustang CAI or what? Also, are using a tuner? I am planning on a Bama SCT tuner by the end of Jan. and the UDP in Feb. That is impressive power and torque.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-01-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 14
Glad to see a web site dedicated to Rangers! I am a die-hard Ranger fan since driving my first one of 8 way back in 1988. They are the only vehicles that hold up to the abusive driving I put them through day after day. I am all about performance and would love to have a V8 under the hood but I can't give up the reliability of the 3.0 and 4.0. The last Ranger I had was an '00 with the 3.0, and it would run 100 before the speed limiter held it there. The suspension on the '98 and up models also made the truck sit level and was softer than earlier models when the back was higher than the front.
The Edge profile sits up in the back like the older models, and the suspension makes it handle great....one of the pedals is always to the floor in mine, whether it is the brake or the accelerator. I was almost ready to give up on newer Rangers for a firm sporty ride until I drove my current model. The '01 Edge 4.0 I have now is great - 55 in 1st, 91 in 2nd, then shifts to 3rd, 4th, 5th and OD, the drawback being the factory speed limiter holding me back at 91 m.p.h. It is frustrating when a Toyota Prius hybrid or a Yugo passes you on the Interstate. After holding out for a couple of years now for anyone to make a chip for the '01 4.0, I got an SCT tuner and that speed limiter is history.
My first change to my truck was simply replacing the stock paper air filter with the lifetime K&N high flow filter ($70 when I first found it), which made enough difference to break the tires loose from a complete stop. Then I got this tuner ($399) and love the performance gains. I have one profile loaded in the flash tuner for torque, so I can still tow my boat 1100 miles on my fishing trips to Florida several times a year too.
I am debating next whether to go with an electric fan or the underdrive pulley...has anyone done their mods in stages to determine cost efficiency? I am leaning toward the fan first for the price, since I read that you can gain MPG and notice a power increase with either one, but that's why I am asking here.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-01-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by TORQUERULES
What CAI? I didn't think they made one for the newer 4.0s with the slot-in MAF element (no separate MAF housing). So is it a Mustang CAI or what? Also, are using a tuner? I am planning on a Bama SCT tuner by the end of Jan. and the UDP in Feb. That is impressive power and torque.

OK.. I don't know the proper terminology for the K&N kit I bought. If you look in the e-fan post by me you can see what it looks like. It's not a true CAI.. but will be soon.


Gone,

I'd suggest going with a underdrive crank first. You can feel the power increase everytime you step on the throttle. I always carefully measure gas milage.. and now that I have the fan tuned to the proper temp I'll fill it up today and start reporting on milage increases. (I drive 350-400 a week)

BTW: If I were back in the south I'd suggest the fan and controller I have vs just a cheap one. Down there you'll run the fan much more than I will up here in Mi. The flex-a-lite products are top quality and the fan I have linked in the e-fan thread flows more than enough for these 4.0L rangers.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-01-2007
TORQUERULES's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ripley, WV
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl
OK.. I don't know the proper terminology for the K&N kit I bought. If you look in the e-fan post by me you can see what it looks like. It's not a true CAI.. but will be soon.


Gone,

I'd suggest going with a underdrive crank first. You can feel the power increase everytime you step on the throttle. I always carefully measure gas milage.. and now that I have the fan tuned to the proper temp I'll fill it up today and start reporting on milage increases. (I drive 350-400 a week)

BTW: If I were back in the south I'd suggest the fan and controller I have vs just a cheap one. Down there you'll run the fan much more than I will up here in Mi. The flex-a-lite products are top quality and the fan I have linked in the e-fan thread flows more than enough for these 4.0L rangers.

Rich
Thanks for clearing that up. I am running an S&B drop-in filter with a modified air-box and I think it is plenty for these engines. With the slot-in MAF system unless the pipe the element goes in is exactly the same size as stock it will cause the engine's A/Fs to run afowl unless some tuning is done to compensate, and even then the open element filter will do it to some engines running this type of MAF system. What I am saying is that any true CAI that is eventually made for the 4.0 Ranger will have to take all of this into consideration.

Props on a nice write up. Now I know I am headed in the right direction for my planned engine mods. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-06-2007
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
Hrm...me thinks this may find its way under teh rangers hood heheh...wonder if my gal will notice.

whats with the dips in the graph at the beginging? can u moniter the A/F?

any chance u'll be doing headers?

i think u should (or someone if they're feeling generous, LOL) should make a simple chart in excell of rpms of 1500, 2000, 2500, etc...and show the hp/tq of each mod. that'd make this uber clear. MAYBE i will...if u can pm me all the info u have. im curious to have this for myself.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-06-2007
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Thanks Rich for your time and effort. Another informative post/comparison. Greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-10-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Just wanted to post an update.

I've filled up twice now since the pulley & e-fan install. This is too few a number to give a definitive conclusion... but I'm seeing a slight increase in milage. (approx 1mpg) Since owning the truck (3800miles so far) it seems to very *MORE* with ambient temp swings than anything else.

I don't want to spend the money on a programmer.. but if it can buy me 2mpg that might be worth it?


I will say this though.. the torque increase is without question able to be felt in the seat of your pants. Everywhere & all the time you can tell it's got more punch.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-10-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 13
yeah, I coud also tell an increase of torque all around. my mileage has dropped overall though since I bought the truck in 02. I went from 300 miles per tank to about 260

Devin
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-10-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
I filled up at lunch w/297miles on it. Low fuel light just cam on and I put 17.6 gallons in.

But, it's also dropped into the teens & 20s the last few days when I drive.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-12-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 288
Wow I am so curious to what you "wonder MPG" people do. I drive almost completely on the highway to work and back 60 miles round trip and the MOST absolute MOST I've ever gotten out of one tank of gas is about 280 miles...gas mileage was like 18.4.

I must just have a crappy truck or something or my E-fan eats more gas than it saves...

Oh and I set my cruise at 67-69 mph.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-12-2007
Marcaronio's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by corrond56
I am running the underdrive pulleys on the crank, alternator, and water pump on my 3.0 and I could tell a noticeable difference when they were put on. I havent had it dynoed ever so I dont know what my base line is and I already have a cold air intake and exhause so it will be interesting what I lay down when I get it dyno tuned eventually. Hopefully after regearing.

By replacing the alternator and water pump pulleys with underdrive pulleys it will speed them back up because the smaller diameter pulleys will spin faster. they are just a PITA to put on.

Devin
Do you mean that you have?:
- 20% underdrive crank pulley
- 20% overdrive alternator pulley
- 0% underdrive/overdrive water pulley

If you actually have underdrive alternator and water pulleys, where did you get them from because I can't find them on stuffforyourranger.com.

Thanks,

Marc
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-12-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Jeff, Driving style has the most impact on milage from one truck/car to the next of the same model.

I drive like your grandpa 80% of the time. On nearly every car I've even owned I seem to get better than reported milage.. and it's because I accelerate gradually.. with traffic.. but gradually.. and I anticipate stops. Very very seldom do I ever brake hard. Matter of fact my brake pads and rotors always last 100k+ miles. I just drive easy for the most part. So far my best milage with this ranger was 19.xx The odometer had something like 321 on it when I filled up. (it's a brand new truck too so that helps some as well)

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-15-2007
TORQUERULES's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ripley, WV
Posts: 302
Hey I drive a combination of city and highway everyday (about 25 miles total to and from work) and when I am on the highway I cruise pretty fast and I average 20-21mpg. I couldn't believe it, but I have checked it NUMEROUS times. It is a 4.0 SOHC, 4x4, ECSB, with the 5 speed auto and 4.10 gears. I am continually impressed.

BTW, I enjoy the power of the truck and I do not like to wait around at lights and on ramps, so you could say I drive moderately agressively in this truck.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-15-2007
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Avon, IN
Posts: 756
i dont really worry about MPG anymore.. im always between 14-16 anyway.. swampers killed any efficiency that WAS there from ford
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-16-2007
WholesaleMN.com's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Blaine, Minnesota
Posts: 246
I got 16.5 when I was babying it... Best I have ever got was 18.3 that was on a trip to KS (from MN). If I drive the way I like to drive I get 13-14 around town, and 12-13 towing a 19 ft Sea Ray. Overall I did not buy the ranger for the Gas Milage, I got it to haul crap. Got a focus for MPG.. :)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
underdrive crank pulley zbott93 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 4 10-27-2014 04:16 AM
Underdrive crank pulley zbott93 General Ford Discussion 1 10-24-2014 02:50 PM
Those of you thinking about doing crank underdrive pulley eddiefromcali 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 26 10-22-2009 06:27 PM
3.0L Underdrive Crank Pulley + O/D Alt Pulley & Belt Goodysgotacuda Engine & Drivetrain 6 05-17-2009 01:58 AM
Two years of 1 year oil changes with Amsoil: Test Results (big scan of lab results) n3elz Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews 22 06-02-2005 08:53 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.