econoline performance mods?
 

Hello I am new today just found your site. I am wondering if anybody else out there is putting performance mod on their vans. I have a 1990 e150 conversion with a 5.0. In the past few years I have added a set of shorty pacesetter headers, a throttle body spacer and modified the air intake box and install a K&M filter. These mods gave me noticeable towing power to the rear wheels and better gas mileage. I sold my camper and am now going to go for better gas mileage. I have purchased a set of 2:73 gears for the rear end, current have 3:08's. I am going to install a cam that gives me peak torque around 2500 rpm. I would like to get rid to the cat and install a H or X pipe and open up the exhaust. I cannot find anybody that make a cross over pipe for a truck this old. I was wondering if anybody has tried one that would fit a 5.0 Mustang? :-innocent

Since I have 0 mods - I can't help you much with with the crossover pipe, but I would recommend some caution with the gear ratio. There is such thing as going overboard. If you get the cruising RPMs too low, you wind lugging the engine and putting more strain on the transmission. When the tranny has to hunt up and down, it hurts your gas mileage. You also need to consider where you drive the vehicle. Around town, the 2.73s are likely to hurt your mileage because you'll have less mechanical advantage in getting the van's mass moving. There may also be some loss at speed due to the lack of aerodynamics on the van.

Of course, this is theoretical - I'm sure that someone will chime in with some real world experience with a 2.73 gear set in an Econoline.

I only put 3500 miles a year on my van all highway. I agree if I drove in the city more my mileage could suffer. My goal is to lower my rpm at 70 mph. Before the mods I made my van could not hold 70 mph in overdrive with a 1000 lb camper on the back with the cruse control on. Now it is not a problem. As far as the strain on the tranny I don not know for sure but my guess it should not be a problem.

Buddy, if you put those gears in you're gonna hate it in the city, it will be gutless, the 5.0 is wimpy as is in these heavy vans, now you are looking to kill it. Depending on the current exhaust size, you will lose the low end torque, the cross over pipe will deepen the loss. You best live in a flat state, because you'll not be able to retain over drive on the highway, every little incline will have it searching for gears, you're not supposed to tow in overdrive either, you're gonna find out how expensive rebuilding those transmissions is. I'd not tow with any gears lower than 3:50's, and never in overdrive, you're looking to make it impossible to tow at all.

my experence with two of these vans. i went from a 3.42 gear that would lug at 70 loaded. to a 3.73 both gerar got 15 mpg towing aceretaion improved . underdrive pulleys noticable improvment. repalacing engine van with dual electrics improvement hand made 4" cold air intake. improvment timing 12degrees be carefull inthe mountains noticable. raised fuel pressure noticable. 160 degree thermostate notisable. free flow cat back system minor power change but sounds good f150 processor. van transformed from a pidg to being able to get out of its own way. still gets 15mpg .

Ajax, what van do you have, I'd like to see your intake, I knocked the silencer out of mine and put in a K&N, but would like something different, to get more air, the end elbow before the filter is limiting now.

Pics Please !!

I am not planning to tow anymore. I just want the mpg. Right now I only get 13 mpg at 70 mph with a 3:07. If you are getting 15mpg with 3:73 in it must be down hill with a tail wind.

Like I said, better live in a flat state, those gears will have your transmission searching on every little incline, won't matter if you're towing or not, the only time those gears worked was in the older 3 speed transmissions, before overdrive. You say a cam with peak torque at 2500 RPM, you do know you just moved the power band on the engine higher than stock, counter productive for what you're doing,

Re.Mods
 

Just a few mods I have done on my E350

Dual exhaust sportside, K&N Cold Air Intake,Jet Power-Flow Mass Air Sensor,DiabloSport Predator.
Hellwig Load Pro 25 Heavy Duty Helper Spring on rear.Rough Country Steering Stabilizer.
LT265/75 R16 Firestone Destination M/T on stock wheels.

I have owned 4 big vans over the years. In the mileage scramble days, I got a GMC 2500 van with a 305 in it--admittedly a dog of an engine, but a somewhat lighter van than yours as well.

Stock gear ratio was a 2.73 with a 3-speed Turbo 350 trans, and a lockup torque converter. With very light loads, it could not make it up a very gradual uphill without going into 2nd gear.

I put an Auburn posi in the rear axle and changed the axle ratio to 3.42. It completely changed the vans' character and I did NOT lose gas mileage in either the city or the road. And the trans was not an O/D transmission. But mileage was 12-13.5 with either gear; it was a carbureted 305 and just not a great mpg combo.

I currently have a 4.6 in my 2002 E150, stock 3.55 rear end (Eaton posi added by me) with the O/D transmisison. Works great. Amazing mileage--it can break 18 mpg on freeway runs if I keep it under 70 mph, which I usually can't. Still gets over 17 mpg at about 75 mph.

If you have an O/D transmission, you absolutely should not go to a 2.73. It will spend its life struggling on uphills. With a short stroke motor like a 302, stay with what you have. Oh yeah, my first van was a 1973 Ford flatnose turtle top camper conversion with a 302 and a 3.25 rear axle. It got 12-13 mpg...

I also bought a new Ford F100 pickup back in 1978 with a 300 inch six, 2.75 rear axle, AND the 4 speed O/D manual transmission. It got decent mileage but could barely hold 55-60 mph on the slightest of uphills. I would have preferred that truck with a 3.25 axle. It would get 22 mpg unloaded, at 60 mph (these were the days of the national 55 mph speed limit). At faster speeds, it would still usually be over 20 mpg.

George

I agree that the 5.0 does not belong in E-van. The 180hp from the factory is not enough. Before I made any mods to my van I could not run at 70 pulling a small camper. For a two years drove from Indiana to Florida in third gear and averaged 8.8 mpg. I added about 15 horse power and could now drive in overdrive with no problems and average 12.5 mpg. Yes I still have to take it out of overdrive in the mountains. I would like to add another twenty hp with a different cam. This is supposed to work well with the shorty headers I already have in place. I believe that I am running about 2800 rpm at 70 mph with my current set up. I just installed a tac this weekend but have not had time time to try it out yet. I would like to get my rpms down to 2500 at 70 mph. Yes the 2:73 may be too much but a got a set off of ebay for $30.The Mustang guys sell them cheep. I can always take them out if I don't like them. As far as the van being a dog in the city it already is now so I am used to it.

John

Didn't you say you have an overdrive transmission? I don't think your rpm calculations are correct; I remember my F100 with 2.75 axle and a .8 or .79 overdrive gear (final drive ~2.19) keeping the engine at about 1600 rpms at 60 mph. A quick calculation gets me 2215 rpm with a 29" tire and a 2.73 gear and NO overdrive at 70 mph, so the OD will push you down to about 1700 rpms. Looks like an Epic Fail to me. Go get a rear wheel horsepower/torque reading on a dyno at 1700 rpms. It'll be a little better than a lawnmower with a 302 with a cam in it.

Just because you got a good deal on the gears doesn't mean they are gonna work, but put 'em in and report back if you want to go through the drill. I say that they'll accomplish worse than nothing.

A big van with 2.73 axle and a 302 just does not compute, even if you had no overdrive. I've had vans and trucks with long gearing, and I really believe that there is no way your project will not work the way you want it to. A hotter cam and shorty headers will just push the torque peak up and move you further from a useable vehicle. My old 300 inch six with 1 barrel carb had its torque peak at 1600-1800 rpm, so it would do *something* cruising in that rpm range. Your 302, not so much.

George

Very few understand upgrading a cam, just the word performance is all they read into it, don't know how to read the numbers. BTW gearing is an expensive venture, to have it done right we're talking new seals and bearings, then there is the labor, it comes out around $1000, that's a lot to spend for something that is a mistake.

$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.

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

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.

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?

It seems your determined to find a way to spend money on your Van. Please report all findings...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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!