Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Ford Vans and other vehicles > 1968-2013 Full Size Vans
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1968-2013 Full Size Vans Econolines. E150, E250, E350, E450 and E550

Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!





 
Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #16  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:06 PM
Grems4ever's Avatar
Grems4ever Grems4ever is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Laquey, MO
Posts: 2,678
Grems4ever is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.Grems4ever is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeyak View Post
$1000? Labor? Who pays for Labor! OK explain this, my 3.8 Buick Park runs 2000 rpms at 75 mph at gets 25 mpg. My Mercury Villager with a 3.0 runs 2800 rpm at 75 mph and gets 22 mph. I just have to get usable torque to the back wheels.
Aerodynamics & weight.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. What works in a car will not necessarily work on a full size van.
__________________
Dave Pershing
1971 F-100 (Project) 360 FE CI 4 speed
1987 F-150 300-6 4 speed
1999 E-350 Super Duty 6.8L V-10
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:12 PM
YoGeorge YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,624
YoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeyak View Post
$1000? Labor? Who pays for Labor! OK explain this, my 3.8 Buick Park runs 2000 rpms at 75 mph at gets 25 mpg. My Mercury Villager with a 3.0 runs 2800 rpm at 75 mph and gets 22 mph. I just have to get usable torque to the back wheels.
Dude, the Park is like a Corvette compared to an E150 being a freakin' barn. It's not just rpm's, it's the vehicle. I have owned a full size van of one kind or another since 1986, and a Ford pickup before them, back to 1978. I have also owned everything from 426 hemi muscle cars to Corvettes to front and rear wheel drive 4 cylinder economy cars to Olds 98's. A 302 in a big van needs to rev. It has a 3" stroke, shorter than the stroke in my 4.6 (which is a 281). If you want low rpm torque, build a 300 inch six or a diesel.

2.73 ain't gonna work. If you know better, do it and report back. We'll put a photo of your van by the definition of "badly lugging engine" in the dictionary.

George
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-25-2010, 10:45 PM
maples01's Avatar
maples01 maples01 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Maryville
Posts: 3,182
maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.
facebook.com/TheCrip Maples01
I'm talking about doing a gear swap in a rear axle costing $1000, that's why many find a replacement with the gear set of their choice and swap the entire thing.
A van is NOT a car, they lack the aerodynamics, apparently you haven't listened to what others are saying so go right ahead, you'll be wasting your money. BTW I had a dodge van with 2.54 gears, it was gutless, barely pull out of our steep driveway, and it was without overdrive, if it had, it'd have not been able to stay in it.
__________________
My wheelchair has yet to stop me from wrenching on my vans.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-26-2010, 06:04 PM
cardeyak cardeyak is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14
cardeyak is starting off with a positive reputation.
OK, I was just making a point that the lower the RPM usually means better gas mileage. I also agree that the rpm's can go too low. According to Randy's Ratio Calculator my current rpm's at 70 mph with a 3:07 ratio is 1825. With a 2:73 ratio 1623 rpm's about about a 200 rpm drop. According to this web page a small block Ford should be able to handle 1800 rpm's. Maybe a little low still thinking about it. I need to look at some more cam data. Crane is selling what they call a towing cam for trucks. Anybody ever try one?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Rod Bender's Avatar
Rod Bender Rod Bender is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 49
Rod Bender is starting off with a positive reputation.
It seems your determined to find a way to spend money on your Van. Please report all findings...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-26-2010, 06:30 PM
maples01's Avatar
maples01 maples01 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Maryville
Posts: 3,182
maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.
facebook.com/TheCrip Maples01
Yep, installed an RV cam in my 4x4 truck, and as stated above, it raises the HP and TQ curve to a higher RPM, the opposite of what you're wanting, sorry there is no lower than stock cams either.
When you manage to do this, up date us on how long it takes before you smoke the transmission from sporadic shifting while trying to locate the proper gear.
__________________
My wheelchair has yet to stop me from wrenching on my vans.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-26-2010, 11:13 PM
alvaroguillen alvaroguillen is offline
Freshman User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Covina
Posts: 44
alvaroguillen is starting off with a positive reputation.
How did you make the custom air box? i want to do the same thing for my econoline. what air filter did you build it around? and ow did you modify the cold air intake?

i have built custom air intakes for motorcycles, I would like to put a couple of filters directlly onto the econolines carb intakes-, and maybe an air filter bag over them, but would the air not be cold enough if the air filter is under the hood with no cold air intake duct work?
__________________
1988 Econoine 150 XLT
5.0L EFI 8cyl
bought for $100 on craigslist
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-27-2010, 07:24 AM
ajax ajax is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nashville tn
Posts: 23
ajax is starting off with a positive reputation.
I run 2250 at 72 mph with a 3.73 the top gear in the aode is .68 od that a pretty step od but i do get 15 mpg. if i were to rebuild i would stroke to a 331 cid and run the mustang camshaft it is a really good tourqe cam. and use a set of the explorer gt 40 heads.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-27-2010, 04:17 PM
cardeyak cardeyak is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14
cardeyak is starting off with a positive reputation.
I took the snorkel tube off and drilled a new hole in the side of the box below the filter for the PVC valve hose and re-stalled it. I drilled more 1" holes in the front of the box below the filter to relive the restriction at the opening of the box and added a K&N filter. When I did this I also put on a 1" throttle body spacer. Somebody made the comment that I was just looking for a way to spend money on my van. Yes, they are correct. I try and make some upgrade every year before my 2300 mile spring break road trip. This year will be no exception.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-27-2010, 08:22 PM
YoGeorge YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,624
YoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeyak View Post
OK, I was just making a point that the lower the RPM usually means better gas mileage. I also agree that the rpm's can go too low. According to Randy's Ratio Calculator my current rpm's at 70 mph with a 3:07 ratio is 1825. With a 2:73 ratio 1623 rpm's about about a 200 rpm drop. According to this web page a small block Ford should be able to handle 1800 rpm's. Maybe a little low still thinking about it. I need to look at some more cam data. Crane is selling what they call a towing cam for trucks. Anybody ever try one?
I was probably overestimating the O/D gear ratio in my post above when I guessed 1600 rpm at 60 mph. Instead, you're at 1600 rpm at 70 mph. EPIC FAIL in a big van...might be able to handle a motorcycle application or a Cobra kit car. Even 1800 rpm's is not enough for a big van at 70 mph with a low torque motor like a 302.

No idea what you mean about "should be able to handle 1800 rpm's". How close is your torque and horsepower peak to 1600 rpm? Your engine probably puts out about 60 horsepower at that rpm...

George
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-28-2010, 04:17 PM
cardeyak cardeyak is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14
cardeyak is starting off with a positive reputation.
According to the ratio calculator my stock factory set up is 1825 rpm's at 70 mph. That is 235/75/r15 tires at 27.7" tall 3.07 rear end and a .7 final drive ratio. I have had my van for 10 years when you predict my transmission failure will happen? Also is the cam in the link below what will not work in my van. I have asked Jegs for horse power and torque curves comparing it to the Ford cam. I will report the answer.

John

Comp Cams 31-255-5 Comp Cams Computer Controlled Series Cams
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-28-2010, 05:10 PM
YoGeorge YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,624
YoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to beholdYoGeorge is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardeyak View Post
According to the ratio calculator my stock factory set up is 1825 rpm's at 70 mph. That is 235/75/r15 tires at 27.7" tall 3.07 rear end and a .7 final drive ratio. I have had my van for 10 years when you predict my transmission failure will happen? Also is the cam in the link below what will not work in my van. I have asked Jegs for horse power and torque curves comparing it to the Ford cam. I will report the answer.

John

Comp Cams 31-255-5 Comp Cams Computer Controlled Series Cams
We are just about there on rpm except a 235/75x15" tire is nominally 28.8-29" tall, which will cut your calculated rpm to about 1750 at 70 mph with your existing gearing.

The final drive is virtually identical to my old '78 F100 pickup (2.75 axle with a .79 or .8 overdrive), which was 1200-1500 lbs lighter than your van, had a smaller frontal area, and which I used only for light loads. It was a short bed stepside that I bought new for a 60 mile daily roundtrip commute. And that truck had a 300 inch six which had its torque peak AT 1600 RPM's. Repeat--torque peak at 1600 rpm.

The 300 was a 4x4 bore/stroke motor which worked well at low rpm. I remember renting a 12 foot box moving truck with the 300 and it was slow but did the job. It was also used in UPS trucks. The 300 was designed as a low rpm TRUCK motor.

The 302 is a 4x3 bore/stroke motor which does not work well at low rpm--I've had 2 or 3 vehicles with 302's and remember them pretty well. They were derived from the 221 Falcon V8 and were designed for small cars. Not big vans.

Your van is geared way too long as it is, and if you change the axle to a 2.73 it will be even more of an Epic Fail. Gas mileage is not determined solely by engine RPM. Please understand I enjoy science experiments too, but yours seems about as likely to succeed as me building a pair of wings for my arms and flying a mile. If you want to improve gas mileage, build yourself a streamlined nose cone, chop the top, put on a low front spoiler, and take 1500 lbs of weight out of your van. Then run it on 4 motorcycle tires, or maybe move to metal wheels and run it on a train track.

George
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-28-2010, 06:55 PM
maples01's Avatar
maples01 maples01 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Maryville
Posts: 3,182
maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.maples01 has a good reputation on FTE.
facebook.com/TheCrip Maples01
I want the smiley banging his head against the wall to add here.
I've always called the 302 a car engine, feel the same way about the 4.6, it's not just the weight, its the mass against the wind, you get a clue of how much when driving on a windy day.
He asked a question, we've all answered, now there is 2 pages of arguing the fact, so- since you know everything and plan on doing what you want, WTF did you ask for?
__________________
My wheelchair has yet to stop me from wrenching on my vans.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-28-2010, 07:15 PM
bill11012's Avatar
bill11012 bill11012 is offline
Modular motor junkie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,190
bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.bill11012 has a great reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoGeorge View Post
2.73 ain't gonna work. If you know better, do it and report back. We'll put a photo of your van by the definition of "badly lugging engine" in the dictionary.
Haha, so true!


To the OP, put some 3.55s in and just live with the mileage.

You will have a happy motor and trany that way, pull hills and gain speed better and should not lose any MPGs because it will not be lugging all the time.

You might even gain a little!
__________________
My V10 will out pull your PSD any day of the week,
If its close to stock and of the same age as my V10.

My IDI can't out pull anything.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 07:15 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Ford Vans and other vehicles > 1968-2013 Full Size Vans

Tags
3, 307, 98, air, e150, e350, econoline, ford, intake, mod, mods, performance, put, transmission, van

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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My gas mileage is great - 19 MPG combined thomastl 1997 - 2003 F150 58 01-07-2010 05:25 PM
Exhaust and performance 99F250Iowa Modular V8 (4.6L, 5.4L) 11 12-31-2009 08:37 PM
Dualing my '89 F150 5.0 4x4 V8Power4x4 1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks 4 12-01-2008 06:42 PM
performance chip recommendations falcondfb Computer Chips & Tuners 6 12-26-2006 06:09 AM
2000 5.4 L tuning and perf. mods johnny2000 Computer Chips & Tuners 1 08-09-2005 09:32 AM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup