Cheap and easy tricks

[Ray Lobato]

Dignan,
I have GM tow hooks on my 97 and that's where I pick up the truck with my HI-Lift jack. Those things are bullet proof.

 

[T-Bone]

Scatterbrain Thread

Wow! That thread was interesting and funny and WAY off track. I loved it!

Dead Link Removed

Rhett, you crack me up with this:

What gets me is these little dudes that run around in Toyotas or Hondas with 5" clown exhaust and a set of wheels too big for the car. They have a "Mean People Suck" sticker on it.
That stuff is not fast, all it does is make a lot of sewing-machine noise when they step on the gas pedal. I can run over and crush their tiny cars with my Explorer. I guess I am one of the mean people that suck. ehehe

I lost track, but I had a question about the shackle that the one dude (Mudder I think) bought for $11 at a hardware store for a tow hook. It this really safe? The bigger the stronger, I'm sure, but shouldn't the bolt or shackle be checked for sheer strength? I'd hate to be on the recieving end of broken shackle traveling at 300 mph.

T-Bone

 

[Exploder160hp]

n/m

 

[flyguy]

Personally, I dont think I could do anything to get my explorer to beat anything... Except maybe an act of god... or maybe about 10 McLaren's trying to tow me.

Nick

 

[zavetsky]

Beating other vehicles

Ok.......here's how I have always felt..........

I have a Dakota pickup.......4x4, 318 V8, 3.91s in the rear........posi.........computer chip, pulleys, 3" exhaust........

For a truck, especially for a 4x4, she is VERY fast and pretty dang quick.

Can I beat brand new 'Stangs with the 8's? Well that depends on how good the other driver is and if I get a good holeshot, etc........

But even as quick as the Dak is, its not as quick as many other BUILT FOR SPEED cars out there.......

The fact is, I can give most vehicles a great run for the money with my Dak........people juts cant believe that a truck is that fast..........

But, yes, I get beat a lot by smaller, faster vehicles.......no big deal........

I temper the fact that I get beat with the fact that not only can I give folks a decent run and in some cases "win", but my truck can take me places offroad that the faster cars cant even think about......

Same with my Explorer......Yes, my Explorer is ddefinately slower than my Dak....and YES, I would like to get more torque and grunt.........But the fact is, the Explorer (and my Dak for that matter) was built for a different purpose than zipping from light to light.........Sure, I'd like to squeeze a few more "yeeha"s out of it........dont we all....but when I drive my Explorer I take comfort in the fact that I can drive offroad, up into the mountains, through the mud, down a beach or any other offroad type of setting I can think of..........let those Celicas and 'Stangs try that!

Ok..................I'm off my soap box now!!

 

[mike91]

The only reason why the Civic makes a 100hp per liter is because Japanese car manufacturers have taken the time to put work and technology into the vehicles that they market and sell. Ford in particular prides themselves with prehistoric engine technology and this is displayed in most of the cars that they make - for christ sake why can't the Mustang win any of the sport car challenges for at least one year. It seems as though Ford keeps doing just enough to have the car lag into third place, but never can it bolt into first.

To further bolt my claim, the all new Honda S2000 produces 240hp with only 2.0 liters of engine (all engine - no turbo, no NOS). Can you name any American car manufacturer that can claim that feat or be willing to forgo the R&D expense necessary to accomplish this? I think not. No one can argue that our trucks are slower b/c we have more parts, bigger parts in our engine, etc. First of all, our trucks are not made for speed and secondly, that specifically proves my point, our engines are **** b/c Ford made them that way.

The final arguement is plane nonsense, I hope that you were joking that an explorer with smaller tires, gears and a limited slip will beat a civic si. Yes, I love my truck with all my heart, but you must give credit where it is due. Take my explorer, smaller tires, gut out the interior, throw a supercharger on it and maybe, just maybe I can dethrone a Civic Si - lets not even delve into the fact that his 130mph limited vehicle will be waiting for us at the next rest area while we chug along trying the pass the 107 limiter (with the truck shaking likes its going to fall apart). But then again, the Si comes stock and I had to modify my truck to keep up with it. I hope I never originally made it seem as though I was praising the Si over our explorers. I was merely praising the craftsmenship of the vehicle that I was considering purchasing and insinuating that much time went into producing 160hp from only a 1.8 liter engine. A little more could have been done for my truck -

 

[Exploder160hp]

civics are okay.

 

[zensius]

Mike, another small flaw in your reasoning. You claim Ford isn't intersted in spending anything on r&d to develop a great motor. And that they constantly come in third because of their old technology. Well, Mustangs do come in third and that's sad but the reason is that the Camero is using technology developed in the 60's. It's a 350 !! Pure cubic inches. Nothing new. The mustang loses because for went to a more refined, better fuel economy, smaller motor that lacks torque. It's only a 4.6. So it loses for the same reason that a Civic would.

 

[Tom Wilk]

100 hp per liter would be great on 2 wheels. Actually, in a car that light, a 1.6 liter (litre for you, Donkey Boy ), engine is reasonably potent. Yes, you won't find that kind of HP/liter on a larger engine. Like Exploder160 said, more friction, and more inertia to the moving parts. It takes less energy to stop and reverse the movement of a lighter piston than it does a larger heavier piston. And that is what your engine is doing every revolution.

OHV engines also have an inertia problem in the valve train. You won't find many stock OHV designs that will go to 6 grand without the valves floating. Too many moving parts to "stop and reverse" against their own momentum.

I do think that Ford could do a bit better in the engine department. The SOHC engine is pretty strong, if you don't count the cam chain tensioner problem. But even there, the output is only 50 or so HP per liter. It can be more, but you lose the low end, which makes it less practical unless you have extremely low gearing and a very high stall converter in your auto. You also get into some extreme expense. You can't compare the S2000's engine to that of any high production car. It's a specialty car, costs a ton, and will never be sold in volume. Unfortunately, most people don't really care about performance so why make it?

As far as the 1/4 mile, Car and Driver tested the Explorer Sport SOHC at 16.2 seconds in the quarter, which is right in the ballpark with the Honda Civic in question. Not bad for 4000 pounds plus of iron with 30" tires. That can be trimmed with a few parts as well. I know that you'll get a few horses out of a chip, K&N, and free flowing exhaust.

The top speed limiter that mike referred to is primarily put in for liability reasons. They don't want to exceed the speed rating of the tires. The 'stones are, I believe, "S" rated. I don't like the whole idea as it was done with legal considerations in mind. Get a good chip and that problem will go away. Still, I don't think you'll get a near stock Explorer much over 120. There's just too much wind resistance with the brick-like shape. But the Explorer never pretended to be a high performance car. It's a truck!

 

[mike91]

PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POST - here's a clip

Yes, I love my truck with all my heart, but you must give credit where it is due. Take my explorer, smaller tires, gut out the interior, throw a supercharger on it and maybe, just maybe I can dethrone a Civic Si - lets not even delve into the fact that his 130mph limited vehicle will be waiting for us at the next rest area while we chug along trying the pass the 107 limiter (with the truck shaking likes its going to fall apart). But then again, the Si comes stock and I had to modify my truck to keep up with it. I hope I never originally made it seem as though I was praising the Si over our explorers. I was merely praising the craftsmenship of the vehicle that I was considering purchasing and insinuating that much time went into producing 160hp from only a 1.8 liter engine (Yes 1.6 Liters, made a typo). A little more could have been done for my truck -


Exploder - once again you fail to read my message, so I will post it once again(above).
* You are having to modify your 16.7 explorer to keep up with a civic. The feat cannot be done bone stock. Alright, invest the same amount of money you would spend on your explorer into the Civic and where are you?, back to square one. All I said is that Ford could have done more for the output of my engine - the **** comes with 155hp. You may have a SOHC or v-8, but I don't.
You can't just say, let me race a Civic Si, but only in the quarter mile - that's plane bias. Speed and performance is not justified in one area - (0-60 Civic wins, 1/4 Civic wins, After that the Explorer is left realizing that he can't win. Why, cause you can't compare apples with oranges. (PLEASE DO NOT BRING A RANGER INTO THE DISCUSSION NOW - WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CIVIC AND THE EXPLORER)

* My brother-in-law had a Civic Si and sold it after a year for a 2000 Trans Am Ram Air (Yeah very fast). During this time I rode in his car and was very satisfied by its performance especially when the car only cost $16,400. There aren't many other cars that can match that performance for that price. The car is worth every penny.
You cannot say the Si is **** - I bet you say the same for the Accord and the S2000 (which cost $33-36 only due to high demand at the dealers). You must fail to notice that these cars are always (or for the most part) featured in Car & Drivers 10 best cars for the year. Where's Ford?
Tom raised a great point, it will cost a lot of money for improvements in tech. That's the problem with American car manufacturers - never willing to spend money.

* Everyone also mentions that the rather high output is due to small displacement. I agree, but the S2000 is a brand new car - technology made it that may. In another 5-10 years Ford might be a little more advanced.

* The Mustang is a great muscle car, no doubt (i would own one if the insurance wasn't so high), but why would Ford make the move to put a smaller engine in car when it already had a 5.0? "Oh, we aren't winning, so lets go smaller, that might be the problem." I see something wrong with that.

* I love cars and in particular hated imports for the longest until I started reading about them and there performance. I have grown to appreciate them.... I simply hope that you can as well. But hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

[Edited by mike91 on 09-05-2000 at 11:01 AM]

 

[Exploder160hp]

sure

 

[mike91]

It seems as though we are reaching common ground now - you stated that the Stang can be a badass with some tuning by Ford. That's just my whole point. If Ford would just add that extra effort to most of their cars - they would all excel, but I think Ford is just satisfied giving only 95%. The Mustang is doing better now with the 4.6, but thats b/c they did not use the full potential of the 5.0. And believe me I don't trust them that much after this whole Firestone thing (going behind our backs to conceal tire replacments in other countries). Anyhow, its been a good discussing this topic with you. I'm out.

PS - I'd much rather have a Mustang (hot looking car) than an Si - its much faster stock, but it does come at least $5,000 +tax higher (for the Civic you could add a Turbo, intercooler and coilovers and have a relatively equal to or quicker car). Personally, though I think I'll save my money for now since the Explorer is running fine..... except for the @&#$#& Firestones!

Mike

 

[BExplorer]

Tricks please

Sorry to interrupt this conversation, but is this a tread on cheap and easy tricks or an argument about a truck and a car that where not built for the same purpose. Please I would like more trick and less arguing.

 

[mike91]

Sorry to bother you.... here's a trick

If you remove all the seats of your vehicle your truck will accelerate faster due to the reduced weight

 

[Triton46]

hehehe, thats a good one. It removes heavy relatives as well.

 

[flyguy]

hey...I just read something about an titainium exhaust system to drop weight.. thats cool!!!! Not cheap though.. heh.

nick

 

[tac0meat]

hey flyguy, i remember reading the thread where you replaced your cylinder heads. two things: first, do you have a link to it, i couldnt bring it up on the search. second, could you tell me the purpose/benifits of the swap?
thanx in adavnce

 

[Alfredo/Expl.XLS1999]

HI! I can do the refrigeration tape thing to my XLS?, if yes please show me where. Thanks

 

[Rhett]

You can put the tape on your air intake tube and airbox. Read the other messages about it, there are a lot of them that explain exactly the layout of the 5.0 vs 4.0 air intake systems. I think an XLS has a 4.0 but I'm not sure.

 

[treehuger]

Hi,
I dont know if you go offroad in your Explorer but a real cheap mod is to extend the dfferential breather tubes up into the engine compartment so you dont get mud, water, etc in there when stream/puddle crossing (on or off road)
You need longer peices of the same diameter hose, a 'T' joint to bring them into one hose and couple zip ties to fasten it to something (I hooked mine to the wiper motor)
Regards,
Doug