95 F250 XL need help.

[Domman56]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee

intake and exhaust is stock


it have rustproof stuff under so it be tough to clean off.


Would 4.10 to 3.73 be huge difference? I found them for free but still want 3.55 so I can cruise on highway faster and get little better mpg.

If it has the same kind of setup as the 460 The intake is Purposely restrictive So that it'll quiet down the motor

So i'd suggest trying an Open element style intake or a cold air intake.

Exhaust what i would do is put a flowmaster or two flowmaster 2 chambers under it with turndowns aat the rear axle (I can't garuntee these will work because others on the forum will contradict it but I'm just saying what has worked for me)

[El Duende]

Originally Posted by Domman56

If it has the same kind of setup as the 460 The intake is Purposely restrictive So that it'll quiet down the motor

So i'd suggest trying an Open element style intake or a cold air intake.

Exhaust what i would do is put a flowmaster or two flowmaster 2 chambers under it with turndowns aat the rear axle (I can't garuntee these will work because others on the forum will contradict it but I'm just saying what has worked for me)

Just used the "thanks" (Nut-hugger) feature for the first time. This post was worthy of it.

Apparantely, select contrarian members have taken it upon themselves to recommend the opposite of what's widely accepted factually and anecdotally. They label aftermarket parts as something that appeals only to hardcore "tuners" aiming for peak horsepower with absolutely no regard to drivability or ricers who bolt on drag-inducing body kits with other aerodynamically inefficient items, completing the look with a protruding muffler resembling one off a school bus. Very stereotypical assumptions, indeed. But no, "performance guys" have it backwards: a "tuner" wants gas-powere, the "eco-dude" wants battery-powered ; they swap in a CAI/SRI, here they rock a WAI; some guy with a Civic puts a spoiler on, the other a "boat-tail"; yadda yadda...

Instead of blatantly ignoring what's been around for years because you have some sort of innate oppression against it, why not look into it as adamantely as you do for future concepts? It might just help you get that high MPG number you've been yearning for.

[Domman56]

See the fact you don't understandd is if you've ever seen the open elements that go on these trucks, Like 14 inch universal open air claners for muscle cars ARE WAI's they sit right on top of the motor and suck in ALL the underhood air Cold and hot or even the intakes of the time for these trucks still have a tube Like CAI's but essentially are WAI's

And the pure reason for me suggesting the muffler on this truck is it SOUNDS GOOD
I personally drive slower when i hear the car i can kind of gauge my speed just by sound. Putting on a flowmaster saved me 1 MPG not because of backpressure or anything like that but because now i just cruise around much slower listening to the burble of my V8

And if us performance guys are so Bassackwards please explain to me all of those 6-800 HP duramaxes pulling 25 + MPG on the freeway

[Christ]

Originally Posted by El Duende

Just used the "thanks" (Nut-hugger) feature for the first time. This post was worthy of it.

Apparantely, select contrarian members have taken it upon themselves to recommend the opposite of what's widely accepted factually and anecdotally. They label aftermarket parts as something that appeals only to hardcore "tuners" aiming for peak horsepower with absolutely no regard to drivability or ricers who bolt on drag-inducing body kits with other aerodynamically inefficient items, completing the look with a protruding muffler resembling one off a school bus. Very stereotypical assumptions, indeed. But no, "performance guys" have it backwards: a "tuner" wants gas-powere, the "eco-dude" wants battery-powered ; they swap in a CAI/SRI, here they rock a WAI; some guy with a Civic puts a spoiler on, the other a "boat-tail"; yadda yadda...

Instead of blatantly ignoring what's been around for years because you have some sort of innate oppression against it, why not look into it as adamantely as you do for future concepts? It might just help you get that high MPG number you've been yearning for.

You didn't graduate high-school, did you?

Seriously - you need to do some research, and ask a real tuner. Any one that's worth his title will know the same concepts we discuss here. Many of them do. You're basing your entire knowledge of engines on a handbook that was written for one vehicle and has no known references, which was meant for kids with mom's paycheck in hand, or at least that's what you've shown so far.

If you're only going to show this type of ignorance in your next 25 posts, I'm sure many of us would just as soon you didn't post at all.

Why exactly did you join this forum? You don't see people from EM going to performance websites and bagging on the things they do, do you?

You have no backing, no experience that you've shown, and no valid reason for believing any of the things you've said in this thread, nor the other one that I discussed with you. You've shown pure disdain for every piece of information that has backing in physical science, you've denied reality and instead, substituted your own.

I'm sorry, but unless you change your tone, nobody here will take you any more seriously than a troll.

It's Ok that you disagree with known concepts. Disagreement spawns discussion, which spawns advancement. It's not OK that you disagree, have no basis outside of opinion and conjecture for that disagreement, have shown a lack of respect for the forum in general, and can't even back up what you say with a valid reference.

Mods, if I'm over the line here, please let me know, and I'll do what's necessary to fix it.

[El Duende]

Originally Posted by Christ

You didn't graduate high-school, did you?

Seriously - you need to do some research, and ask a real tuner. Any one that's worth his title will know the same concepts we discuss here. Many of them do. You're basing your entire knowledge of engines on a handbook that was written for one vehicle and has no known references, which was meant for kids with mom's paycheck in hand, or at least that's what you've shown so far.

If you're only going to show this type of ignorance in your next 25 posts, I'm sure many of us would just as soon you didn't post at all.

Why exactly did you join this forum? You don't see people from EM going to performance websites and bagging on the things they do, do you?

You have no backing, no experience that you've shown, and no valid reason for believing any of the things you've said in this thread, nor the other one that I discussed with you. You've shown pure disdain for every piece of information that has backing in physical science, you've denied reality and instead, substituted your own.

I'm sorry, but unless you change your tone, nobody here will take you any more seriously than a troll.

It's Ok that you disagree with known concepts. Disagreement spawns discussion, which spawns advancement. It's not OK that you disagree, have no basis outside of opinion and conjecture for that disagreement, have shown a lack of respect for the forum in general, and can't even back up what you say with a valid reference.

Mods, if I'm over the line here, please let me know, and I'll do what's necessary to fix it.

Can't say I didn't see this coming.

I was waiting for you to respond to this. In doing so, you're identifying with blatant ignorance. This goes both ways. You seem to be very self-rightous in the way that you've attacked me, as if it's me who is against discussion when I'm actively participating and questioning the logic behind the methods passed through word of mouth. (Or keyboard) By discrediting my source, you have turned your back on my argument, labeling it as a "kid's" book. I can assure you that this isn't my only one. Where are your sources? You told me somebody's gonna swing by and give me them eventually. In that case, you have no backing to prove me wrong. It frustrates you. What I could do is ask a real tuner to come over here and clarify my points. He/she will say the same thing as I have, because those are the people that taught me how it's done. Hopefully the name "troll" won't describe my profile. Looking back, I tried to make amends with you by stating that I'd look into your side of the argument before proceeding, but you hit me with another post and kept going. Guess you overlooked that. Using you as an example to represent EM in another forum would send a bad impression and more than likely embarass the community. Talking about you, I see lots of pompous, big-headed talk of how I don't have any proof or an educational background, but as our debates progress, you have less of substance, more of a desire to simply win an argument with me than to prove a point. With that said...

Go bring me some evidence, chap.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by El Duende

Can't say I didn't see this coming.

I was waiting for you to respond to this. In doing so, you're identifying with blatant ignorance. This goes both ways. You seem to be very self-rightous in the way that you've attacked me, as if it's me who is against discussion when I'm actively participating and questioning the logic behind the methods passed through word of mouth. (Or keyboard) By discrediting my source, you have turned your back on my argument, labeling it as a "kid's" book. I can assure you that this isn't my only one. Where are your sources? You told me somebody's gonna swing by and give me them eventually. In that case, you have no backing to prove me wrong. It frustrates you. What I could do is ask a real tuner to come over here and clarify my points. He/she will say the same thing as I have, because those are the people that taught me how it's done. Hopefully the name "troll" won't describe my profile. Looking back, I tried to make amends with you by stating that I'd look into your side of the argument before proceeding, but you hit me with another post and kept going. Guess you overlooked that. Using you as an example to represent EM in another forum would send a bad impression and more than likely embarass the community. Talking about you, I see lots of pompous, big-headed talk of how I don't have any proof or an educational background, but as our debates progress, you have less of substance, more of a desire to simply win an argument with me than to prove a point. With that said...

Go bring me some evidence, chap.

You're right, that post was probably a little abrasive. I'm not really frustrated so much with your posts as with your apparent attitude towards the people who frequent this forum. It's very uncalled for, and could be considered downright rude by many.

In fact, in regards to making an example of a forum and being embarrassing, I could say the same to you. You've still not backed up anything you've said, other than with a book that literally does equate to something marketed to people who just don't know any better, and (that I"m aware of) has no references contained inside it. I have, in my library, a book called "Sport Compact Tuning", published by Haynes, INC. Of course, if I were to use that book as a reference to tuning a car for anything more than "The Fast and The Furious", I'd get laughed out of ANY venue.

The fact is, there is science to support the efficacy of nearly everything that gets discussed on this forum. If you choose to separate yourself from it, so be it. The undertone in posts is not necessary, though.

[Milwaukee]

Ok you not believe it.

I got 11 mpg Just fill gas tank 20 mins ago to try 89 octane

How I do. Drive like you stolen and cruise 75-80 mph on highway and drive hard when I am in city like you try get in first line on Telegraph in Dearborn from Woodhaven. Drove in reverse 35 mph for 2 miles. Why I was try figure why much drag so I thought drive in reverse for 2 miles would loose something.


If I drive really slow I get 9 mpg opposite drive like you stolen you get 11 mpg WTF.

[El Duende]

Originally Posted by Christ

You're right, that post was probably a little abrasive. I'm not really frustrated so much with your posts as with your apparent attitude towards the people who frequent this forum. It's very uncalled for, and could be considered downright rude by many.

In fact, in regards to making an example of a forum and being embarrassing, I could say the same to you. You've still not backed up anything you've said, other than with a book that literally does equate to something marketed to people who just don't know any better, and (that I"m aware of) has no references contained inside it. I have, in my library, a book called "Sport Compact Tuning", published by Haynes, INC. Of course, if I were to use that book as a reference to tuning a car for anything more than "The Fast and The Furious", I'd get laughed out of ANY venue.

The fact is, there is science to support the efficacy of nearly everything that gets discussed on this forum. If you choose to separate yourself from it, so be it. The undertone in posts is not necessary, though.

Same could be said about yours, coming from a member who's got 6,000 posts, I have to wonder how many of them are targeting newcomers who you find "rude." Maybe there should be a criteria posted somewhere so that they'll know how to write things in a light, fluffly manner. Any and all of my comments have been proceeded by some sort of cool down statement. I'm not here to put others down, but rather, to get the facts. Everything that I don't know about will be questioned and I'll put forth what I know in order to see if it's right or not. So far, nothing has been said otherwise.

What forum am I making a bad example of? I'm exclusive to no forum, hence why I joined this one to enlighten myself of the eco-modding world.

Here's a link to said book:

How to Build Performance Nissan Sport Compacts, 1991-2006, Sarah Forst, Book - Barnes & Noble

Now, since you referenced a library in your comment, (Don't know if it's a credible one) if you happen to come across it, the photographic image of the cover will be ingrained in your head. There's no missing that giant Sentra with a GT wing.

You still haven't admitted that you haven't added any sources either. The most you have provided was one very interesting word that I've added to my vocabulary. There are posters like you that I've encountered who seem to value quantity over their quality of statements. (Based narrowly off of the statements you've made with zero backing. I'm following your example.) In person, the tone is the same, regardless of who's receiving it. I have little patience or sympathy for you at this point, much less after attempting to reconciliate only to have been countered by a condescending response.

[Domman56]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee

Ok you not believe it.

I got 11 mpg Just fill gas tank 20 mins ago to try 89 octane

How I do. Drive like you stolen and cruise 75-80 mph on highway and drive hard when I am in city like you try get in first line on Telegraph in Dearborn from Woodhaven. Drove in reverse 35 mph for 2 miles. Why I was try figure why much drag so I thought drive in reverse for 2 miles would loose something.


If I drive really slow I get 9 mpg opposite drive like you stolen you get 11 mpg WTF.

Haha dude i totally understand you My dad has a vehicle (which i'd rather not talk about on this forum) and if you Drive the hell out of it on 87 octane it gets 10 MPG and if you cruise around slowly on 87 octane you get 10 MPG

However if you run it on 91 octane and drive it SLOW OR FAST you get 11MPG
So maybe you should try 91 octane and half throttle acceleration/ cruising See if that works out for you

[99metro]

Tires should be sidewall max (I'm running 53 psi on 50 psi max tires). Bump your timing to just before ping. If you use change octane, make sure you adjust your timing accordingly. I'd say 50% throttle acceleration will do. NEUTRAL COAST A LOT! Since you have an E4OD (overdrive) and 4.10s, then 47-50 mph should be your sweet spot. Driving technique and aerodynamics will be the next two significant increase in MPG. My intake is heated by radiator fluid from the factory - yours might be also. I think that covers it.

1989 Bronco 351W/C6 @ 15+ mpg