trinituner.com

Need to know which is better performance-wise. Pro's and Con's

Its hard to get info on the 2.9L Non-turbo Ranger.

HP ratings and torque figures anyone?

thanks

Engine will definitely (ok most likely) last longer than the WLT (2.5)

But lacks power... Turbo makes all the difference

bleedingfreak wrote:Engine will definitely (ok most likely) last longer than the WLT (2.5)

But lacks power... Turbo makes all the difference

If you're going for the long haul, 2.9 n/a. I'd recommend it. When a turbo starts to give trouble, it's stress and expensive to repair.If you choose otherwise, be sure to get a turbo timer and give the turbo time to warm up and cool down.

sweeks wrote:

bleedingfreak wrote:Engine will definitely (ok most likely) last longer than the WLT (2.5)

But lacks power... Turbo makes all the difference

If you're going for the long haul, 2.9 n/a. I'd recommend it. When a turbo starts to give trouble, it's stress and expensive to repair.If you choose otherwise, be sure to get a turbo timer and give the turbo time to warm up and cool down.

Is the turbo-timer recommended only for the after-market turbo installation? Spoke with the sales rep in McEarney FORD and he said that the Ranger's turbo is smaller than say a Frontier's, and is both Oil & Water cooled. Hence it generates less heat and doesn't need that extended cool-down period with a Turbo Timer.

the 2.9 is the older van as well

lighthammer wrote:

sweeks wrote:

bleedingfreak wrote:Engine will definitely (ok most likely) last longer than the WLT (2.5)

But lacks power... Turbo makes all the difference

If you're going for the long haul, 2.9 n/a. I'd recommend it. When a turbo starts to give trouble, it's stress and expensive to repair.If you choose otherwise, be sure to get a turbo timer and give the turbo time to warm up and cool down.

Is the turbo-timer recommended only for the after-market turbo installation? Spoke with the sales rep in McEarney FORD and he said that the Ranger's turbo is smaller than say a Frontier's, and is both Oil & Water cooled. Hence it generates less heat and doesn't need that extended cool-down period with a Turbo Timer.

turbo timer = toys for noobs

bleedingfreak wrote:turbo timer = toys for noobs

.....who spend $500 because they have no patience to wait 1 minute

I've heard that turbos with intercooler doesn't need a turbo timer .... not sure how true it is.

To be honest I hardly ever use my turbo timer unless I'm pulling off the highway and switching off (engine : non-intercooled 1kz-te).

I've heard that turbos with intercooler doesn't need a turbo timer .... not sure how true it is.

Depends on how the turbo is being "cooled". Older turbos of lore were mainly "oil cooled" (via the oil used in lubrication), and those were more prone to coking....hence the advent of turbo timers.

However, most newer turbocharged cars (this includes those turbo Audis, VW's, BMW's, nissans, even most pickups I believe) are both oil AND water cooled. In most cases, this negates the need for really having to use a turbo timer. The owners manual in my car says that something along that line (turbo is oil and water cooled......cooldown period not necessary).

Especially considering in most cases, before you reach your actual desitnation, you may have about 1 minute of off boost driving anyway (driving thru a car park, parking in your garage etc etc).....and all of that is essentially a "cooldown" period as well

Alpha_2nr well said ...