Anyone know any good Tuners to use on the 2.5 Lima engines to increase power and fuel economy that won't break the bank?

 

The "chips" are a waste of money.

I doubt any software change would be noticeable on a stock 2.5l in any case.

Ford doesn't de-tune engines, they want the best MPG(which is also the lowest emissions) and the most power from every engine.

There is a compromise between power and MPG, that's the Laws of Physics, not Ford, lol.

When you want more power from an engine you add more fuel, simple as that, a "bigger cam" pulls in more air so more fuel can be added.
A turbo charger pushes more air in so more fuel can be added.
Pattern here is "more fuel can be added"

A 5.0l engine doesn't have more power that a 2.5l because it is physically bigger and weights more, it has more power because it can burn more fuel per minute than the 2.5l.

I think there are still some companies around that you can send an EEC-V(computer) to and have them program it for your engine changes, might even be one in Salt Lake; or you can buy a programmer, plan on $600+ for that.




You want to get a few more horse power AND increase MPG a bit, switch to an electric radiator fan, doesn't cost too much and if engine doesn't have to drag that belt driven fan around, HP and MPG BOTH go up.

Also it really helps in cold weather, the Lima 2.x engines bleed heat, many have to cover the front of the rad in winter just to get heater to work, lol.
This is because the belt fan, even if not fully engaged, still circulates cold air around the engine bay, e-fan is just off in cold weather

 

Second the e-fan one of the first mods i did on my 3.0 and its very noticeable few extra ponies about 10 to 15 miles per tank more. Plus it seems to rev faster which would be good for you since like mine your 4 cyl power band is way up the rpm range peak hp is like 4600rpm so it would help you get there faster and make it feel faster. Again its not a horsepower adder just a horsepower freer. You may also look at a custom header if tuned correctly it can move the power band down the rpm range so you can hit it faster my headers helped with that quite a bit.

 

RonD, thanks, lot of good info. Ya I was planning on the e fan.

I've heard that living in SLC engines don't get enough O2 because of the elevation. But then I've also heard the stalk air filter was made for a bigger engine anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
So that's the reason I was looking at the tuner, so I could customize the air fuel ratio for this elevation. And I don't want to "upgrade" to one of those bolt on air filters that are supposed to move more air, because I'm pretty sure that just means they filter the air less.
Any ideas?

 

Stock air systems have been Cold Air Intake(CAI) style since the 1970's, even before on some, so yes, it would be a waste of money to change stock air system for performance reasons, this has been dyno to death, they don't add power period.

Although a good CIA system can "sound" very cool, and if done right you won't lose power, and nothing wrong with spending money on a good "sound" system

Around 1990 Ford switched over to MAF(Mass Air Flow) system.

The way it works is to measure the air flowing into the intake, the information is used by the computer to calculate the amount of fuel needed for the volume of air.
There is also an IAT(intake air temp) sensor, this compensates for cold air which is denser than warm air.

The Ford MAF sensor uses a heated wire, air moving past the heated wire cools it, the more air flowing the cooler.
BUT denser air(sea level) will also cool it more than lighter air(5,000ft).
So the MAF sensor along with the IAT sensor(correcting for actual air temp) compensate for any change in elevation.

The fact you drive at the higher elevation all the time simply means you will have less power than at sea level, that's just the physics of it, not a tuning issue.

Turbos are very popular in Denver(the mile high city) because of the lower air pressure, these give added power, BUT, that same turbo engine would still have more power at sea level, lol.

 

Any recommendations on efans? RonD?

 

I have only done the Taurus e-fans and they are often hard to find now.

There are two good reads in this tech section here:
Ford Ranger Heating & Colling Technical Library

The Volvo fan looks interesting and 2 speeds is nice but not required, you can just use it as a 1 speed.

I like the Radiator probe temperature switch, very simple to install.
Summit racing has this one:
http://www.summitracing.com/int/part...3653/overview/

But there are others, the probe fits between the fins in the rad, when the rad heats up to the temp you set, the fan comes on, when temp drops the fan goes off.

The switch above is not to power the fan motor, that is done with a high amp relay, the above type of switch is to turn the relay on and off so low amp side.

If you do 4 wheeling with water crossings then you should install an on/off toggle switch as well, so you can turn off the e-fan in high water, another nice benefit with the e-fan, no water coated engine electrics like with a belt driven fan, lol.

 

Are the 3.0 and 2.5 cooling systems the same?

 

??

All "water" cooled internal combustion engines have pretty much the same cooling system, "water" jackets, water pump, thermostat and radiator with pressure cap, some have expansion tanks and others have overflow tanks.

Are the radiators the same, usually not, if that was the question

 

That isn’t ALWAYS true. Just because you are unloading the crankshaft to DIRECTLY turn the fan does NOT mean you are unloading the ENERGY from the crank to turn the fan. The power to run the electric fan motor has to come from somewhere…the ALTERNATOR. Have you ever taken a belt off an engine, started it, and attempted to spin the alternator by hand? Unless you’re some super strong person, you WILL NOT be able to do so when that voltage regulator cranks up the field coil in an attempt to bring the vehicle’s voltage up to the normal 13.8-14.4 Volts. So, if it takes 2hp to turn the fan directly off the crank, 1hp is equal to 746 Watts so 2hp would be 1492 Watts. That is at 100% efficiency as well. Once you calculate in the resistance of the wiring, the heat lost in that resistance, and the heat created by the fan motor, you’re around 75% efficiency. That 2hp now turns into 2.67hp or 1989.3 Watts to turn the SAME fan but now with an electric motor. Now think about gearing (picture your bicycle gears here). A larger drive gear increases the output speed and a larger load on whatever is driving it. A smaller driven gear increases output speed and increases the load on whatever is driving it. Both cases in this being the engine. Now, look at your water pump/fan pulley and compare it to the alternator pulley. The alternator pulley is smaller. Both are being driven by the same drive pulley so that remains constant, but the alternator puts MORE load on the engine because it has a SMALLER driven pulley. Now think about how much MORE horsepower/torque it takes to actually turn that alternator to make the extra 1989.3 Watts required from the alternator to run the motor that drives that fan. Once you calculate reduction in efficiency and the extra load on the engine from the difference in pulley size (same as gearing), it is actually MORE efficient to leave that fan driven directly off the belt. There’s no loss of efficiency in the belt AND it’s geared better (close to 1:1 vs 0.5:1). So, don’t be so quick to buy into these people that make electric fans and the people that sell them; they just want your money so they MARKET them as more efficient than a belt-driven fan, when in fact it’s not.

Just like when you’re buying an amplifier and one company puts the max wattage on the box while the other puts the RMS wattage on the box. The max is higher which creates the illusion to the buyer that it’s more powerful when, in most cases, it’s actually WEAKER than the amp with the RMS wattage on the box. RMS is continuous power which is what you need to be concerned about. Max wattage is an arbitrary number used for marketing reasons and is what an amp can deliver for a split second for a quick punch and it drains every capacitor in the amp’s power supply to do so. That often is immediately followed by a dip in power as the power supply recharges all of its capacitors.

It’s ALL MARKETING in order to play on the ignorance (used properly here meaning that someone doesn’t know better, not that they are stupid. It just means they haven’t learned something yet) of the general consumer.

Go look at a flow chart of air filters as well. K&N filters flow more than your standard paper filter but actually flow LESS than a NAPA Gold filter. The only REAL advantage of a K&N air filter over a NAPA Gold filter is the fact that it’s washable and reusable, PERIOD. Once you actually do research and see the testing/science behind a lot of things out there, you will see all of the holes in the marketing schemes.

Another instance is gold plated audio cables. They claim they make a better connection and transfer the signal better. Guess what, there is STILL another interface between the gold plating and the metal that gold is plating. Every interface between 2 pieces is an opportunity for resistance. The ONLY way gold would truly increase signal transfer is if the connections were SOLID gold, the entire cable was made of SOLID gold, and it was ALL one piece with no solder joints anywhere in the cable. But that is NOT the case. It STILL goes through copper wires with solder connections and most of the time a steel or aluminum connector that is plated with gold but a lot of these companies charge like they ARE solid gold! I saw some “high end” RCA’s that were $120 for a 3’ cable. WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING???

So, before you go buying a bunch of stuff that someone told you you need, DO YOUR RESEARCH to make sure it’s ACTUALLY going to do what you want it to do!

 

That’s what the Ford EEC-IV (PCM) already does. It reads the MASS of the air coming into the engine via the Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor, mixes fuel based on the air mass, burns it, and confirms its calculations using the upstream O2 sensor. Your PCM is ALREADY optimizing the A/F ratio for every variation in atmospheric conditions. Barometric pressure changes constantly, humidity changes constantly, temperature changes constantly, and that ALL affects the density of the air going into the engine. Some engines have a separate IAT (Intake Air Temperature) sensor and some (most) have the IAT built into the MAF. All of this is designed to continuously adjust and “tune” the engine to run as optimally as possible. A programmer is NOT going to help that. The only thing a programmer does is change the TARGET A/F ratio and the ignition advance. The only reason that would be helpful is if you want to run 89, 91, or 93 octane fuel instead of 85 or 87. Most factory programming is a bit on the rich side under acceleration (11.5:1-12.0:1) because it’s safe and they don’t have the ignition advanced as much as it could be. Lean it out a bit to make a bit more power to somewhere around 12.8:1 (you DO NOT want a true 14.7:1 under load or you WILL detonate!!! ESPECIALLY if you’re running forced induction. I would never go leaner than 12.0:1 on a turbo engine) and advance the ignition a couple degrees to make a few extra hp on the stock octane. You CAN run a BIT leaner (13.0:1 on an N/A engine) and advance the ignition a BIT more (0.5-1 degrees) with higher octane because the detonation resistance is higher. That’s why guys running turbos or super chargers ALWAYS run AT LEAST 93 octane, if not 100 unleaded or the switch to E85 which performs like 104 unleaded gasoline. They can run a couple extra pounds of boost, advance the timing a hair more, and run VERY slightly leaner to gain that extra 5 hp over the competition. So, again, your PCM is already compensating for the altitude. You MIGHT gain another 5-7hp by changing the target A/F ratio and target ignition advance to get a little more out of the 87 or to get more out of higher octane fuel (8-10hp), but that will still always be adjusted based on the current atmospheric conditions. It’s just not really worth the money unless you have a bigger cam, bigger heads, better intake/intake manifold, better exhaust system AND headers, or you’ve added forced induction and you’ve exceeded the limitations of the PCM’s fuel trims to correct itself. Again, just like my other reply, DO NOT but into marketing!

 

Have to disagree on the E-fan
Radiator cooling fan is only needed when driving slowly or stopped, when at speed the E-fan would/should be off, so no draw on alternator or engine/crank, giving you better power(as needed) and better MPG, it certainly isn't alot but ain't 0 either
Mechanical fan draws energy whether its needed or not, at speed the air flow thru grill/radiator can actually spin the mechanical fan but it still has a draw
So full time draw or part time draw

 

yes, but a belt driven fan also has a thermostatic clutch. There is no load on the engine when the clutch is disengaged and actually the fan is spinnin h faster than the engine while you’re on the highway meaning if there is any drag, the forward motion is spinning the fan and actually assisting the engine

 

yes, but a belt driven fan also has a thermostatic clutch. There is no load on the engine when the clutch is disengaged and actually the fan is spinnin h faster than the engine while you’re on the highway meaning if there is any drag, the forward motion is spinning the fan and actually assisting the engine

 

WOW! A 7 year old thread just to argue about a fan! LOL

I'm not taking sides but Ron is more correct. When engineers were tasked with getting as much MPG due to a bunch of EPA regulations, one of the first things every manufacture did was eliminate the mechanical fan.

 

Actually, the real reason for them going to electric fans was because they started turning engines sideways for front wheel drive and they could no longer orient the belt driven fan with the radiator. All I was trying to do was tell people about marketing and how people try to get you to buy things based on claims that seem to be true but really aren’t. The bottom line is that a fan requires a certain amount of energy to turn regardless of how it’s driven. There is no loss in efficiency with a belt and it does have a clutch to take the drag off the engine when it’s not needed. There IS a loss of efficiency with an electric fan due to heat and resistance plus the higher gearing of the alternator. A KNOWN FACT of PHYSICS is that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. When a fan is in operation, it will take MORE energy from the crankshaft to run an electric fan of the same size, number of blades, blade surface area, and RPM due to electrical losses. Driving down the highway will not require the fan to be in operation. The airflow over an electric fan going down the highway will turn the fan but the energy is not captured since the switch is off. The airflow over a belt driven fan, even if the clutch is disengaged, will actually transfer some of that wind energy to the crankshaft. Why do you think modern longitudinal engines STILL use a belt driven fan? It’s certainly not cheaper to manufacture because an electric motor is dirt cheap to produce but a fan clutch is not. The only times an electric fan is used in a longitudinal engine is when the shape of the front end of the car does not allow them to line the radiator and fan up with the water pump pulley. If EPA regulations were the reason for electric fans, they would be REQUIRED on ALL vehicles, ESPECIALLY in California and with Commercial vehicles, but that is FAR from the case. You can sit here and argue in favor of the people trying to take your money, but the pure laws of physics cannot be broken.

If you’d like, I can do a test with MAF and calculated load data if you’d like. I’ll go buy an electric fan that has the same CFM as the belt driven fan on my truck. I’ll run the engine up to operating temperature and cause the fan clutch to engage so that I can record the grams per second and calculated load from the PCM with my diagnostic computer. I will then remove the belt fan and install the electric fan. I will remove one of the Coolant Temperature Sensors, install a Tee, and add a fan switch for 190°. That will be wired to a relay and I will power the fan with the relay from the battery. I’ll use 10 AWG wire for the fan motor which is what most fan supply wires are. Then I will repeat the test showing the grams per second of air and the calculated load from the PCM with the fan starting and running. Haven’t you ever heard the engine bog down when a fan starts up and the alternator increases its output to supply the power to the fan and then the load drops when the fan kicks off? If the data shows in favor of the electric fan, I will retract all of my statements. If it shows in favor of the belt fan, I don’t want to hear another word in this thread about an electric fan being better. If I’m willing to back up my claims with real data and retract my statements if I’m wrong, then I deserve the mutual respect. I will even record the data of engine load and MAF with the fan OFF to show the load of a freewheeling belt fan.

 

On paper I am sure the math works, it always does, its just not always right

So I guess the dyno tests, from non-E-fan marketers, are all wrong, no HP or Torque gains switching to E-fans

Having a different opinion is not disrespect, its having a different opinion