|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 14, 2016 19:17:34 GMT
Ok, by some miracle, got my half inch drive T55 torx bit socket in mail today. Six bolts, all came out relatively easy. LIke say this truck is pretty rust free. I spent ten years up north, and dont ever want to deal with that automotive rusty bolt nightmare again. If there was significant rust, I'd suggest people just cut the bolts with an angle grinder and replace with generic hex head bolts. This method of changing out the fuel pump is great if the bolts cooperate. Otherwise might be easier to cut an access hole or drop the tank, though betting one might want to have some new tank straps on hand if you live in rust belt.
Anyway now just waiting for FedEx to deliver the new pump, it too supposed to come today. Paid whole extra dollar for FedEx to deliver it to end of my driveway rather than USPS to the clusterbox. They are also usually faster than USPS, though not always. Downside to FedEx and UPS is occasionally get some new driver that doesnt know to walk the package little ways up drive and put it out of sight over at one side. Lazy ones leave it right down at edge of county road. Others take it back for some more experienced driver to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 14, 2016 23:21:25 GMT
New fuel pump installed.
The absolute worst thing was trying to get the sender sealed back in the tank with new rubber o-ring. There is no groove, somehow you are just supposed to center everything by guess and by golly. Hard to do in a cramped dark place. I found I needed to glue the o-ring to the sender.
Ok, all back together, start it and let it warm up. Usual too high fast idle cold, then engine got hot, took while but finally it stalled out at hot idle. After some playing I found if I unplugged the new IAC when engine is idling around 750rpm, and leave it unplugged, then it works properly. Fast idle is then 1200, and when engine warms up idle comes down to 750 and stays there. Thats what I want from it so it stays unplugged. Sort of like when I modified the old IAC by drilling a bypass hole and then using gasket with very small holes. Yea I dont know why, but mine is not to question why. This is all magic mechanicals to me, nothing makes lot rational sense. I cant adjust anything, I just have to somehow please the great and powerful OZ computer, so it will adjust things properly. Drives me nuts. I want direct control, not depend on some circa1994 computer.
Fuel pressure isnt lot different than before, little higher, not significant amount, 29psi at idle instead of 25psi at idle. But when I rev the engine the fuel pressure dips a bit instead of rising, then returns quickly to normal idle fuel pressure. I assume this is the vacuum of engine acting on the fuel pressure regulator. Didnt do this with old pump. With old pump pressure would rise with rpm. Anyway its lot more stable than it was. So hoping thats a good thing. I am testing how long pressure takes to leak down. New pump with new check valve should hold pressure long time. I say if its still at least 30psi after half hour, call it good.
Anyway what I am most interested in is if power and fuel mileage improves. I am guessing even though fuel pressure didnt change a whole lot, perhaps fuel volume did. I did read of some pumps that would show normal pressure, but volume of fuel delivered was below normal.
Hoping Bosch pump lasts but it had lot more plastic than one I took out. Next time if there is a next time, try a Carter or Delphi or Denso.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 15, 2016 18:46:03 GMT
Back from grocery shopping trip. Got gas in little town close to me. Truck runs nicely BUT I got 8mpg. Thats not typo for 18mpg, that is single digit 8mpg!!!!!!! This truck is really wanting a carburetor engine transplant I think. Seriously a carburetor 460 V8 could beat that! And its a shame, it runs fine, think this engine has lot miles left in it. But come on, 8mpg!!!!! Everytime I fix something, seems gas mileage just gets that much lower. And I am running out of things to possibly fix. Also seriously not wanting to put more money into this engine to try and placate the great computer god.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 16, 2016 20:32:17 GMT
I had changed oil in the engine yesterday, cause of that leaky fuel pressure regulator while back that got gasoline into the oil. Drove it down to clusterbox today. Drove beautifully. Its a very quiet engine, unbelievably quiet for kind miles the truck has, good compression, good oil pressure. Pretty well mannered for most part. I mean with the kind of gas mileage it gets, you would expect a worn out noisy, bucking, snorting monstrosity puffing out clouds of black smoke.
I've just never run into this situation before. I've only had two really bad fuel mileage engines (under 10mpg) in my life before this, both in large heavier vehicles, and both were needing a rebuild, hard to start, oil leaking monstrosities. Both I was happy to replace as quick as possible. This one I truly hate to replace, seems so counter intuitive. I still dont know what the heck its doing with all that fuel, seems it would be impossible to burn it all without running pig rich. Or leak it all over the ground so it reeks of gasoline. That should mean fouled plugs and clouds of black smoke, which isnt happening. And it doesnt reek of leaking gas. This isnt a huge engine.
|
|
|
Post by comfortablynumb on Apr 20, 2016 1:50:51 GMT
Something might be screwed with the computer... I know if I disconnect the computer on my old 88 toyota PU it will run perfectly fine, in default mode and drink like a fish.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 20, 2016 12:19:30 GMT
Yea, thats real long shot though, and a reconditioned ECU is $200. I do remember when I got the codes, there was those two EGR system fault codes, which was weird cause this truck didnt come from factory with EGR. It shows no sign of ever having one, no hole in the drivers side exhaust manifold!, and only California Rangers had EGR in 1994, the federal Rangers got it in 1995.
So might be wrong computer for the truck??? Anyway to the point where any more money gambled on this engine isnt going to happen. The truck I really like, its worth an engine transplant especially since I already have the old chevy straight six I am going to put into it. Oddly I think the old chevy six fit better than an older Ford straight six.
It used to get 16mpg in a full size chevy pickup. And that truck wasnt geared for economy though I dont really remember what axle it had. The Ranger has 3.27 rear axle so should do better. Thats good compromise economy ratio, gas mileage without it being royal pain to drive. Plus guy online with old chevy pickup put a weber progressive two barrel on his straight six and once it jetted properly, got 18mpg with 3.73 axle and no overdrive. Thats darn good with that axle ratio, its a ratio be about right with an overdrive transmission.
|
|
|
Post by comfortablynumb on Apr 20, 2016 12:39:35 GMT
An ECU fr0m the junkyard would be considerably cheaper. If its a wrecked truck changes are it is fine. The pick it yards here consider those touchy electrical parts as almost garbage.
It might be worth a shot if you can fine one to try. But you say you have no pick it yards nearby so...
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 20, 2016 15:42:18 GMT
I looked at website of nearest you pick a part yard. $15 for ECU if they have one. Hour drive one way... at 8mpg.... Hey price for the part is right. I'd gamble $15, not sure I gamble the drive down there... and gamble that they had correct part. They also make you pay just to go out in the yard to look.
I figure a 93 or 94 ECU would work, not sure about earlier, and later had the EGR, which might mean computer is trying to compensate for what it sees as non-functional EGR. It would also have to be off a manual transmission Ranger with 4.0L. Manual transmission Explorers are rarer, and not sure they use same ECU, they mount the ECU inside the cab, where Rangers have it mounted under hood.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 20, 2016 15:54:08 GMT
Huh, website shows inventory. They have three 91 Rangers, dont say size engine or if its automatic. And couple 96, but nothing inbetween. They have a 93 and a 94 Explorer, but even though all Explorers tend to be 4.0L in early years (guess there were some 3.0L?), doesnt say if automatic though most are. I think maybe only manual transmission Explorers were the two door Sport version? I imagine an ECU out of an automatic would have fits with no feedback from the transmission. Or it might just throw up a warning???? I really have no experience with such things, but know computer isnt happy if things arent exactly as it expects them to be. IF nothing else, I have learned that.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 20, 2016 16:27:52 GMT
Looked on car-part.com and see proper application used ECU for as cheap as $35, but with shipping sure it would ruin a $50 bill. Not sure I really want to gamble another $50. It is likely, even if it is a bad ECU, mileage with this engine is never going to be more than 16mpg on regular basis. Reading on Explorer and Ranger forums, most people tend not to top 18mpg, ever, with the older OHV 4.0L. Many seem to tolerate 13 or 14mpg. All I can say is they must never driven an older vehicle with a big V8 that gets that kind mileage. Lot more fun with same gas mileage. I know I can beat that with the old chevy straight six and a Weber carburetor. I can actually tune a carburetor, no computer intermediary. Plus the chevy engine means that its super easy to use a four speed granny transmission. Get rid of this POS light duty 5spd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 0:53:41 GMT
Huh, website shows inventory. They have three 91 Rangers, dont say size engine or if its automatic. And couple 96, but nothing inbetween. They have a 93 and a 94 Explorer, but even though all Explorers tend to be 4.0L in early years (guess there were some 3.0L?), doesnt say if automatic though most are. I think maybe only manual transmission Explorers were the two door Sport version? I imagine an ECU out of an automatic would have fits with no feedback from the transmission. Or it might just throw up a warning? I really have no experience with such things, but know computer isnt happy if things arent exactly as it expects them to be. IF nothing else, I have learned that. Only put 4.0 in explorer...early push rod...then SOHC. Only saw a 5 speed in one four door model...a 94 on cl last week..thought it was a typo but pic shows the interior. Never saw one before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 0:57:48 GMT
Looked on car-part.com and see proper application used ECU for as cheap as $35, but with shipping sure it would ruin a $50 bill. Not sure I really want to gamble another $50. It is likely, even if it is a bad ECU, mileage with this engine is never going to be more than 16mpg on regular basis. Reading on Explorer and Ranger forums, most people tend not to top 18mpg, ever, with the older OHV 4.0L. Many seem to tolerate 13 or 14mpg. All I can say is they must never driven an older vehicle with a big V8 that gets that kind mileage. Lot more fun with same gas mileage. I know I can beat that with the old chevy straight six and a Weber carburetor. I can actually tune a carburetor, no computer intermediary. Plus the chevy engine means that its super easy to use a four speed granny transmission. Get rid of this POS light duty 5spd. I would take it to the Ford dealer and let them hook it up to the life support machine. Answer might be an hour diagnosis fee. Dealer here is 75 an hour. I don't like it either but beats a nervous breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 21, 2016 2:48:33 GMT
I am of opinion that I about as well light a cigar with a burning $100 bill as put more money into this 4.0L engine in hopes of a mileage miracle. Super annoying that it runs really well at this point, just gets 8mpg. Feel lot better pulling it if it ran crappy with no power or was on its last legs. But dang thing probably has another 100k miles in it.... Just go broke feeding it. So easiest to pull it and be done with it.
I know and understand carb engines. No emission inspections here, so better the devil I know. I can rejet a carburetor or change advance curve on a distributor. Dont have the tools or knowledge to reprogram the ECU, and thats the only way to change anything on modern car, cant make direct mechanical changes and expect results as computer will fight any mechanical change by trying to compensate or going into some default limp home mode.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 21, 2016 3:01:13 GMT
Huh, website shows inventory. They have three 91 Rangers, dont say size engine or if its automatic. And couple 96, but nothing inbetween. They have a 93 and a 94 Explorer, but even though all Explorers tend to be 4.0L in early years (guess there were some 3.0L?), doesnt say if automatic though most are. I think maybe only manual transmission Explorers were the two door Sport version? I imagine an ECU out of an automatic would have fits with no feedback from the transmission. Or it might just throw up a warning???? I really have no experience with such things, but know computer isnt happy if things arent exactly as it expects them to be. IF nothing else, I have learned that. Only put 4.0 in explorer...early push rod...then SOHC. Only saw a 5 speed in one four door model...a 94 on cl last week..thought it was a typo but pic shows the interior. Never saw one before. Actually they offered the 302 as an option in late 90s through maybe 2002. Then think they offered option of the 4.6L??? I've seen the 302 explorers, not seen a 4.6L. There was one very nice clean 99 Explorer with the 302, had bad transmission, wanted $500. I was tempted. Kept wondering if the computer would object strongly to me putting a manual transmission behind it as I much prefer 302 to this 4.0L. Really like to know sometime if computer would go into convulsions driving down road with no feedback from its automagic tranny or if it would just throw up an error code and thats it???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 2:55:13 GMT
I am of opinion that I about as well light a cigar with a burning $100 bill as put more money into this 4.0L engine in hopes of a mileage miracle. Super annoying that it runs really well at this point, just gets 8mpg. Feel lot better pulling it if it ran crappy with no power or was on its last legs. But dang thing probably has another 100k miles in it.... Just go broke feeding it. So easiest to pull it and be done with it. I know and understand carb engines. No emission inspections here, so better the devil I know. I can rejet a carburetor or change advance curve on a distributor. Dont have the tools or knowledge to reprogram the ECU, and thats the only way to change anything on modern car, cant make direct mechanical changes and expect results as computer will fight any mechanical change by trying to compensate or going into some default limp home mode. Had a 250 Chevy 6 banger...30 minutes for a complete plugs cap points and condenser...then timing and dwell meter. But new world...4.0 is great engine...had two explorers and looking for another. Run 300k plus easy. Would keep going on it including and up to Ford dealer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 3:01:10 GMT
Only put 4.0 in explorer...early push rod...then SOHC. Only saw a 5 speed in one four door model...a 94 on cl last week..thought it was a typo but pic shows the interior. Never saw one before. Actually they offered the 302 as an option in late 90s through maybe 2002. Then think they offered option of the 4.6L??? I've seen the 302 explorers, not seen a 4.6L. There was one very nice clean 99 Explorer with the 302, had bad transmission, wanted $500. I was tempted. Kept wondering if the computer would object strongly to me putting a manual transmission behind it as I much prefer 302 to this 4.0L. Really like to know sometime if computer would go into convulsions driving down road with no feedback from its automagic tranny or if it would just throw up an error code and thats it??? Right...did have 302...never liked that set up that had AWD...transfer case always working...actually have had 3 explorers with 4.0...forgot about last one ex drove off in. Again...I'm looking for an explorer with a 4.0 now...never had a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 3:03:43 GMT
And yes...they had 4.6 later...not sure if that was AWD.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 22, 2016 13:04:00 GMT
Had a 250 Chevy 6 banger...30 minutes for a complete plugs cap points and condenser...then timing and dwell meter. But new world...4.0 is great engine...had two explorers and looking for another. Run 300k plus easy. Would keep going on it including and up to Ford dealer. Actually the chevy six made it into early 80s so had HEI for last several years it was offered. I dont know that it did anything performance wise, but it did eliminate messing with points every 3000 miles. HEI was pretty robust. Almost indestructible if you remotely mounted ignition chip on a heatsink well away from engine heat. When Ford Duraspark modules started all coming from China and greatly cheapened, I got to running remote GM module on Fords. Also used them on Volvos, Nissans, etc. Those pre-computer ignition modules were in fact just a giant transistor, and the GM module was probably best design though the American made Duraspark modules were ok. I only wish I had known of the interchangability back when I had that old Dodge. It went through modules like no tomorrow. I got to always carrying a spare after couple long walks. And there is site that shows how to use the 80s Ford computer ignition module with any points distributor. You can wire it so points just trigger the module and module fires the coil. You can use either HEI coil or Ford equivalent or standard points coil if thats what you want. Done this way, points last forever since very little current goes through them. Just enough to trigger the module.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 25, 2016 23:33:29 GMT
Back up to a whopping 12.5mpg. Ok, tractor needs fixing before I swap out engines. That 5spd gotta go anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 1:35:07 GMT
Run a vacuum test to see if the CAT is plugged? Being a manual I don't think it can get a limp mode like a automatic will.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 27, 2016 3:40:39 GMT
I removed Y-pipe and cat when I was replacing clutch last fall. No way to do it that I could see without removing this stuff. Cat is already open all way through, I didnt do it, already done most likely from natural causes, the straw stuff from mesh just fell out the end when I picked it up. You could see through it. This thing has 180k+ so where there is no emissions inspection in this state, nobody going to spend money on a new cat for high mile vehicle.
Oh and had to go town today, on way home it felt sluggish. Stopped at mailbox and when I tried to restart it was slow, felt like engine had overheated and moving parts struggling, but temp gauge says it didnt.
|
|
|
Post by TRAVIS on Apr 27, 2016 18:15:27 GMT
Hermit John, I have enjoyed reading about your adventure. I have learned a few things.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 27, 2016 20:27:58 GMT
Wish I had. I was hoping to become more comfortable with a computer vehicle since you just about have to build a carb vehicle from scratch anymore. And guess have learned how they are supposed to work, but all I really learned is that I much prefer a simpler non-computer carb car. My non-computer 6000 pound 4wd F250 gets better gas mileage than the 4000 pound 2wd Ranger. Progress at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 28, 2016 21:04:46 GMT
Ok, that finally settles that. Was headed out to help my ex car shop and my transmission blows. No first or second. I try taking running start up my driveway in reverse since third too high, and somehow that moved things around where I got it where first engaged long enough to get me up the hill. At this point had gear knob way forward almost under the dash holding it there and hoping. I get up here and it wont go into any gear any longer, gear shifter just flops around. I just let it roll back into the tall grass out of the way.
In all my years, never had a manual transmission go out on me like this, clutch linkage, sure, but even then usually could get it into first and if wasnt huge distance, at least limp home slowly. And of course high mile automatics can go anytime without rhyme nor reason.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Apr 29, 2016 14:42:10 GMT
Thinking about it, I knew bearings in transmission were marginal. Think a previous owner had run it dry at some point or at least very low on fluid. After buying truck and changing clutch, found it noisy in all gears. Fourth being best and fifth screaming like a banshee. And the annoying popping out of first gear unless I held it tight. Hmm, suppose that wasnt good for shifter mechanism... Mr. Lucas's nice product added to transmission quieted it down after I changed the clutch. Anyway, suspect the internal shifter stuff is what went to Omaha. Maybe caused by internal bearings getting wobbly?? or more likely me forcing it to stay in first gear by firmly holding gearshifter. If one was a masochist, sure it could still be rebuilt.
Has me wondering if the wonky transmission maybe caused poor gas mileage? I know a bad rear axle can cause poor fuel mileage. Oh well at this point, by far cheapest way to go is the Chevy six with granny four speed. I do not want another light duty 5spd combined with the 4.0L and would love a super low first gear for my hill. I already own both chevy engine and the granny 4spd. Both in good condition. Do need a new radiator as it will have to be mounted further forward for the long six to fit, so needs to be narrow enough to fit between frame rails, and lot easier if radiator for chevy has hose connections on opposite sides from ford radiator. Plus current radiator weeps at the seams where plastic meets aluminum so it needed replacing anyway.
|
|
|
Post by comfortablynumb on Apr 29, 2016 14:42:20 GMT
the internal wear drag can possibly explain the poor mpg....
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on May 5, 2016 0:32:50 GMT
I am a glutton for punishment. I know deep down much better to replace the 4.0L with the old chevy straight six. But my tractor is down waiting for me to finish fixing steering on it. And its a pain to swap engines with the old oak tree limb method. Kinda like to have Ranger working again soon as possible.
So decided to adapt the SM420 granny four speed to the 4.0L. I found a bellhousing off an 80s ranger with 2.9L (Cologne engine so same bolt pattern as the 4.0L) and Mitsubishi transmission. The Mitsubishi transmission has removable bellhousing with round index hole. The more often used Mazda transmission has bellhousing as part of the transmission casting and not removable. All Ranger manual transmissions were Mazda design after 1990. The Mitsubishi index hole only little smaller than chevy bearing retainer. Though bolt holes way off.
Small progress, I have a mini lathe and turned the bearing retainer down for snug fit in the index hole so bellhousing now centered. This was really the limit for the mini lathe. Now working on getting it bolted to the transmission since the designers did one of those modern engineering jobs where they minimized material used to bare minimum, intended this bellhousing to only work with the original transmission with bolts in original places. Its only reinforced around original bolt holes. Its a delicate looking thing though it was strong enough to hold the Mitsubishi transmission to the 2.9L engine. And also means the 4spd transmission cant just hang off it like it could the original chevy cast iron bellhousing where rear mounts were cast into the bellhousing, not the transmission. Will have to make cradle for the SM420 so its weight is supported directly by frame using cushioned motor mounts of course. The bellhousing thus becoming just spacer and way to align things.
Hey at least I will find out if the wonky 5spd was the cause of my low fuel mileage. And I will get a creeper gear which I dearly wished for. Hopefully more than 12mpg I was getting. Oh well, if I do have to put the chevy straight six in later, so be it. At least I will have had bit of a backyard engineering adventure... Cant be lot Rangers out there with a granny four speed.
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on May 12, 2016 0:28:26 GMT
Idiots that sold the packaged tap with drill bit, put wrong size drill bit in it. So first hole too big to thread with the tap. Another tap on way, easiest just to go get bigger tap and use a bigger bolt. The other three holes, used proper size bit, and they are threaded properly. This light duty bellhousing still makes me bit nervous, but its only economic way of doing this. And at very worst should at least last for while. At best probably last the life of the truck... Hey it held the 2.9L to the Mitsubishi transmission in its first life and survived that. Not like I am going to treat it any rougher than in its original use.
Now working on adapting a chevy clutch fork pivot. I certainly am not going to use an internal slave like Ranger used though I think there is a conversion made to use with older chevy transmissions. But I get it all installed, still have to deal with installing Wilwood type hydraulic clutch linkage and have driveshaft shop lengthen the front part of the driveshaft.
Installing it be lot fun I am sure, this is a really heavy lump of cast iron. Havent done this since I owned that 1960 apache and replaced the three speed with a granny four speed. That seems a very long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by shellymay on May 12, 2016 12:22:34 GMT
Following
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on May 18, 2016 0:07:50 GMT
Off topic, but since Ranger is still down... I am having to drive my old firewood F250 pickup as my main vehicle. I recently made a serious reinforcement plate for the cracked firewall so I could go from homemade bellcrank clutch linkage to the Wilwood hydraulic system. The original Ford hydraulic clutch linkage was a nightmare and Ford under-engineered the firewall, so just pushing clutch over the years opened up big crack in firewall, thus my homemade bellcrank linkage.
Wow, made driving it lot more pleasant in traffic. Yea its still an old rattletrap 3/4 ton that rides like a tractor going across a plowed field when empty, but at least I can now ease off the clutch with more finesse, when clueless idiots park on my rear bumper at traffic lights. Lot better control. Way it was, I either rolled back couple feet when starting off or good chance I would stall out trying to avoid any rollback. In olden days people knew better than to park on a truck rear bumper cause they knew most likely it had a manual transmission and would rollback a bit. Now few people are clued to what a truck with manual transmission is like to drive. They just assume everything is automagic.
I will get to do the same Wilwood conversion on Ranger when I get the granny four speed installed. Its just vast improvement over the OEM craptastic plastic internal slave system Ford used. The Wilwood system is just super easy to bleed, whereas the OEM system is biggest pain in rear to bleed I ever saw. Plus if slave goes bad, you have to pull the transmission to replace it. Stupid engineering at its best.
|
|