GT Performance Mods 2005+ Mustang GT Performance and Technical Information

Blown up by boost link thread?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 17, 2009 | 05:08 PM
  #21  
TacoBill's Avatar
 
Joined: September 23, 2004
Posts: 10,039
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by 2k7gtcs
I know of 2 on this forum.
I know one of them personally.
Reply
Old Nov 17, 2009 | 05:12 PM
  #22  
2k7gtcs's Avatar
Post *****
 
Joined: October 9, 2007
Posts: 32,808
Likes: 163
Originally Posted by TacoBill
I know one of them personally.
I did not name names.
Reply
Old Nov 17, 2009 | 05:42 PM
  #23  
07S197's Avatar
Swamp Donkey Man Cans
 
Joined: August 20, 2007
Posts: 4,367
Likes: 2
From: Massachusetts
Originally Posted by TacoBill
I know one of them personally.
sounds like a personal problem














Reply
Old Nov 18, 2009 | 05:04 AM
  #24  
forensicsteve's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: September 12, 2009
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
There are a few of us locally that have forced induction on our S197s and have blown everything from motors to rearends, clutches, transmissions, oil pumps, trutracs etc etc. The cars are raced at a local NHRA dragstrip and are subjected to repeated heavy stress. We are all tuned on a mustangdyno and the difference in numbers from the dynojet that we were tuned on previously, can be 20%.

Our car is fairly advanced in terms of power and supporting mods (for dragracing) and we have the distinction of blowing a fully built motor, trying 28lbs of boost (normally run at 22lbs boost). We were running 100% methanol to keep the IATs down and discovered (after the fact) that the stock intake manifold is not designed for the mixture of gas and fluid. Some cylinders were running rich while others lean, while the overall A/F showed very safe.

We have rebuilt motor stronger than before, added a custom intake manifold, changed from a 4r70w to a 2 speed powerglide and lost 200+ lbs. We expect car at the same 22lbs boost to run way faster than our previous best and we also expect sooner or later, more things to blow up.

Last edited by forensicsteve; Nov 18, 2009 at 05:13 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 18, 2009 | 07:56 AM
  #25  
TacoBill's Avatar
 
Joined: September 23, 2004
Posts: 10,039
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by 2k7gtcs
I did not name names.
Originally Posted by 07S197
sounds like a personal problem



It's all good! I'm just happy to report that the factory cast POS rods and pistons are no longer in my new motor.
Reply
Old Nov 18, 2009 | 07:58 AM
  #26  
Five Oh Brian's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: November 14, 2007
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 8
From: Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted by forensicsteve
We are all tuned on a mustangdyno and the difference in numbers from the dynojet that we were tuned on previously, can be 20%.
I've always known that dynojets read higher than mustangdynos (5-10%), but 20% differences? Wow. I guess I don't feel so bad about my 07 GT Automatic only putting down 364 rwhp on a mustangdyno. I've been thinking of putting it on a dynojet just to see how differently it reads rwhp for my car. Ultimately, dynos are just tuning tools, but I'm still curious.

I think the weak link in my car will probably end up being the transmission. When it goes boom, then a TCI or Level 10 5R55S goes in its place.
Reply
Old Nov 18, 2009 | 09:26 AM
  #27  
forensicsteve's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: September 12, 2009
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
I've always known that dynojets read higher than mustangdynos (5-10%), but 20% differences?
That's just our experience. It was surprising. I've also heard of numbers in the 7-11% range. We did the math on two different S197s with different sized turbos and different boost levels. On the base mustangdyno runs (no tuning, no change in power levels) both S197s showed a 20% drop in rwhp numbers, from the previous numbers off the dynojet. At the end it's just a number that I really don't care much about. Only numbers I look at are ET and trap speed.

Last edited by forensicsteve; Nov 18, 2009 at 09:29 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 03:50 PM
  #28  
stelthy77's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: September 9, 2009
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
From: Toledo, OH
Isn't the cause of failure usually revving the engine too high? Literally "pulling" the rods apart on the downward stroke.

So in theory you could get away with a higher HP or boost level as long as you keep the RPM's below 6000 or so...
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 04:51 PM
  #29  
SilverBossGT's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: August 31, 2005
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
I've been running a twinscrew for almost 2 years at 481 rwhp/440 rwtq(dynojet). I've tracked it once, and had a few spirited sprints on back roads. No problems so far.

I'm not going to offer any opinions on what's safe and not safe, because there are so many variables.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 06:52 PM
  #30  
exgto's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
I survived 467whp on my stock block with ZERO issues before getting greddy and building an engine.

I am very skeptical of your tuners "observations".
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 09:20 PM
  #31  
TacoBill's Avatar
 
Joined: September 23, 2004
Posts: 10,039
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by stelthy77
Isn't the cause of failure usually revving the engine too high? Literally "pulling" the rods apart on the downward stroke.

So in theory you could get away with a higher HP or boost level as long as you keep the RPM's below 6000 or so...
Mine let go at around 4700 rpm's.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 09:23 PM
  #32  
2k7gtcs's Avatar
Post *****
 
Joined: October 9, 2007
Posts: 32,808
Likes: 163
Originally Posted by TacoBill
Mine let go at around 4700 rpm's.

Correction. I know of 3 on this site.



Wasn't yours decelerating when it let go Bill?
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 09:29 PM
  #33  
TacoBill's Avatar
 
Joined: September 23, 2004
Posts: 10,039
Likes: 5
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by 2k7gtcs
Wasn't yours decelerating when it let go Bill?
Gary, it cut loose during acceleration.. maybe 80% throttle?

It went uber-lean and went kaboom.
Reply
Old Nov 19, 2009 | 09:53 PM
  #34  
Bullitt995's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: May 17, 2006
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by tom281
I would look for a different tuner
This
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2009 | 04:55 AM
  #35  
forensicsteve's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: September 12, 2009
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
I'm not going to offer any opinions on what's safe and not safe, because there are so many variables.
+1.

You're going to have discrepancies with dynosheet numbers from one type of dyno to another, from one operator to another, from one transmission to another (since the figures come off the rear wheels).

Who runs race fuel...most folk don't. Fuel from a drum is much more reliable and consistent than pump. Then conditions on the dyno are not the same as those at the dragstrip. You're not launching, banging gears, doing burnouts on the dyno.

You dyno today....then go to the track maybe a week or month(s) from now. Tune is the same. Weather is different, things have changed on the car. You rock and roll at the track, things shake loose, car parameters change. How many folk datalog at the track, make fine adjustments on the tune or just shut it down if warranted, based upon the log? Very few.

I know of 3 on this site.
Go to some other mustang forums where more folk are running boost or nitrous, and shooting for 11s or 10s or 9s...and see all the stuff that blows.
Reply
Old Nov 20, 2009 | 08:09 AM
  #36  
Five Oh Brian's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: November 14, 2007
Posts: 3,651
Likes: 8
From: Pacific NW USA
Originally Posted by forensicsteve
Only numbers I look at are ET and trap speed.
Amen. I'm amazed that my GT's paltry 364 rwhp ran a 12.14 @ 113 last trip to the 1/4 mile. I've seen plenty of guys who supposedly have 400+ rwhp run high 12's @ less than 110.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rando
2010-2014 Mustang
8
Aug 25, 2021 11:12 AM
09-gt/cs
GT Performance Mods
9
Oct 15, 2015 10:03 AM
austin101385
'10-14 Shelby Mustangs
3
Oct 2, 2015 01:00 PM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:38 PM.