I have a 2000 ranger xlt ext. cab 3.0 liter v6. I want to improve the performance but don't want to spend too much. What's the best way to improve the performance without spending alot. I'm willing to try anything. Please help.

 

Your best bang for the buck is gonna be a tuner. You can choose whatever tuner you want, SCT tuners have some of the best overall support, your chances of having a local tuner are better than with most others, but all the tuners work. These are still a descent chunk of change, but when you factor in that they can improve performance and fuel economy, and can alter the shift patterns to increase transmission reliability, they are the biggest bang for the buck. Plus lots of other mods benefit from having the tuner, and the tune can be changes to take advantage of other mods.

As far as a low cost upgrade, you can change out the muffler with a performance type. I use WickedFlow max on all my personal vehicles, and love them, highly recommended. You can of coarse use whatever you wish. I think you will get more performance from the straight through mufflers than with baffled or chambered mufflers.

 

an engines basically an air pump. so the easier it is for it to breath the better it will run and thus better performance. so a cold air/ free flowing intake and free flowing exhaust can be kinda a lower budget. but a programmer definatly gives you the most gain.

 

Does anyone here have or know of someone who has the documented evidence that supports the investment in a tuner or for other mods? Performance improvements: power or efficiency. I'm interested to see what others were able to achieve.

Regards,

Kevin

 

Define documented. I know a bunch of guys that have improved mileage with a tuner by doing their normal MPG calculations.

 

Hi Granny,


I noticed here that if you want to update details on the performance of your vehicle here at FTE that they prefer folks to submit documentation that supports their claims (e.g. track slips). I think that most folks here are reasonably satisfied with informal mpg studies that are somewhat quantifiable, but when it comes to power upgrades, it becomes less conclusive. For example, K&N have power (hp/torque) claims of improvement using their cold intake products. They back these (to some degree) with dynamometer printouts. The documentation provides objective evidence to support the claims.

So, I was wondering if folks here have done some before and after studies and have the documentation to support their findings/claims. I began to look around to see if I could find a local performance shop that might be able to do just that. I need to understand the costs involved but I am curious to see where I sit with 95K miles on the original equipment using conventional motor oil and then start the process of introducing the ‘bolt on’ solutions that claim to improve performance (e.g. synthetic oil, cold(er) air intakes, better flowing exhaust, etc). Maybe this is part of my alter ego speaking (a.k.a. who I am here where I work) and what I would require of engineers/clinicians to substantiate claims. I like the objective evidence that supports a position rather than a gut feel (excluding things like informal mileage studies that have a reasonable margin of error that doesn’t refute believability). Data…give me data.

Regards,

Kevin

 

Typical gains depends on a lot of factors. Lets take a few of these in just to show what you can do.

On my '97 van, I have a 4.0L OHV v6 that produces around 165 hp give or take. It is designed to run on lower octane fuel, 87 or so. This is done to produce low emissions, and to make it inexpensive to refuel. If you run a higher octane, it will do little or nothing, and might even cost performance, since the trucks stock tune would not no what to do with it. The tune is setup for emissions, but what is best for emissions doesn't always give you the best power or fuel economy. The stock tune also has a lot of redundant safeguards meant to protect the engine in the even of simultaneous multiple component failure.

You ask for data, difficult to provide, since a proper tune really has to be set up for your vehicle. But if I for example set up a 91 octane tune, with aggressive timing and fuel tables, I could squeeze out another 24 horsepower with everything else stock (no intake or exhaust mods of any kind). The downside is that I would now have to run 91 octane, and if I put in 87 it would probably knock and ping. The other plus side is that I could simultaneous squeeze out more fuel economy. The computer knows your throttle position, so it can run different fuel and timing maps for low throttle operation so that it can conserve fuel.

K&N's power claims are bogus because they are falsified claims with incomplete or downright bogus information. I point this out not to down K&N, though I can't think of anything nice to say about them, but rather to illustrate that with the right slant to your information, you can falsify just about anything and still make it seem credible.

Tuners on the other hand are born on dynos. Every race winning race car is running either a tuner or standalone engine management. You don't need dynos to prove their power gains, tuners are power gains.

You want data, test your own ruck before and after, as I said, the tune really has to be made for your truck. A good tuner will ask what kind of mods you are running, and will optimize the tune for that. For example, on my van, If I run a larger exhaust, There are subtle things that can be done in the fuel and timing to help take advantage of that. If I run larger injectors, I can tell the computer about the injectors, how the flow (truth, I can't run larger injectors without changing the settings anyway). If I run a different cam, I can change my fuela nd ignition tables to match.

With just a port and polish, some aggressive timing, larger exhaust, and larger intake, I can take my 165 mph engine up well beyond 200 hp. Can't do that without a tuner. Most I could make without a tuner is 30 hp, and even that would be doubtful.

Not saying that I have done those mods on this right, its just a van.

Some of the F150 guys have gotten over 50 hp more with the tuner.

Here is more info
How Tuning Works

Your 2.5L is gonna be a tough animal to work with. Why, because even a major increase in its output is still not a lot.

If you really want more power out of a 2.5L, turbo it. That will cost a couple grand though, but you can take your gutless 4 cylinder and turn it into a Mustang eating V8 killer for a little over $3000. A tuner is part of that price. When I say a V8 killer, I mean you would be putting over $300 hp to the wheels, probably about 330 at the crank.

On a 4 cylinder, there is not muc else you can do that will make any really noticeable difference.

 

Khan,

Thanks for the detailed response. I think that the use of tables would be a source of objective evidence (assuming that they are verified and validated by the manufacturer). Luckily for me, the aims for my little 2.5L are much more realistic; modest improvements in power and efficiency. For the most part, the mod's I would be performing would be aimed at improving fuel economy, but gaining some power would be a nice ancillary benefit!

So, I won't be aiming to surprise Mustangs with my Ranger. To do that, I have my Honda S2000 (2.2L/240hp) but I don't have any plans to modify that engine. If I keep my foot out of it, I can get 31-33 mpg highway. A nice balance of power and economy performance. I'd like to squeeze out 30 mpg highway in the Ranger, so my mods might be low end/low cost bolt ons. Given that I need to replace my exhaust soon, I'm hoping to find a better breathing system that steps me in the right direction. I read up on the tuners: as you probably assumed, nada for the 2.5L that I could find (V6s only). And reading up on 2.3L mods through a link at the Ranger Station, the guy performing the mods states the same as you in that if you are considering Turbos or Superchargers, consider the cost vs. benefit. Ranger owners are better off considering a 5.0L install because of the cost. I'm not sure if that is true, but another point to consider.

I'm driven by curiosity here for the most part. In the world I work in, making false claims could land you in jail. It's easier for manufacturers in commercial industries to make false claims and get away with it. K&N's claims are purposefully restricted...and are dated. I'm a suspicious consumer, so I need to be convinced that an item isn't a gimmick. Without objective evidence (data), something needs to be a widely accepted belief. Even then, it only takes a single example to prove a theory wrong. There are folks out there that have taken time to prove/disprove popular beliefs or to increase the understanding (one guy has popped open dozens of oil filters to help inform folks/buyers of good/better/best solutions...from his perspective).

Enough from me for now...so back to the group.

Kevin