horse power the old fashion way?
2/23/06, 10:35 PM
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
comeing from a small block chevy backround i have a few questions(my roadster makes 758 hp @8750 rpm and 652 ft lbs @ 5800 rpm, with a .700 lift cam and 15.5 to 1 compression ,granted on 114 octane)
first, an all aluminum motor should be able to support 11.5 to1 on pump gas(if tuned correctly)
i see the 3 valve 4.6 is at 9.8 to 1 (rated for 87 octane fuel) 2.5 points doesnt sound like much but...
ive been looking at the differant suppliers and dont find any aftermarket high compression pistons?
second, bigger cams help the motor breath. when can we expect cam and spring kits for the 3 valve?
third, how hard can you turn the stock botttom end ? (6250 is respectable but....)
all the supercharger kits out there are interesting, and the sound is way cool but i would rather make my hp the old fashion way.
as an added plus when the hoods open at the car show, who's to know???
jay
first, an all aluminum motor should be able to support 11.5 to1 on pump gas(if tuned correctly)
i see the 3 valve 4.6 is at 9.8 to 1 (rated for 87 octane fuel) 2.5 points doesnt sound like much but...
ive been looking at the differant suppliers and dont find any aftermarket high compression pistons?
second, bigger cams help the motor breath. when can we expect cam and spring kits for the 3 valve?
third, how hard can you turn the stock botttom end ? (6250 is respectable but....)
all the supercharger kits out there are interesting, and the sound is way cool but i would rather make my hp the old fashion way.
as an added plus when the hoods open at the car show, who's to know???
jay
2/24/06, 06:58 AM
#2
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay, I am on the same page.I am currently in the 11,s making 400HP at the rear wheels with a 125 shot of NOS.My goal now is to build the bottom end stronger and have the heads ported and better cams installed.I have the top end all figured out.I like the bottom end stroker kit from SEAN HYLAND RACING.I too would like to run big compresion but see no options other than flat tops.I want to run my full 175 shot of NOS and can easily see mid 10,s with the motor and spray in this combo.
I want to go old school instaed of big dollar Turbo or supercharger.
When the heat of summer and humidity returns I will still be able to run my number when the others will be off do to the heat.
I want to go old school instaed of big dollar Turbo or supercharger.
When the heat of summer and humidity returns I will still be able to run my number when the others will be off do to the heat.
2/24/06, 07:48 AM
#3
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jay,
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
2/24/06, 10:20 PM
#4
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 19, 2006
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Boss Hog @ February 24, 2006, 8:51 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Jay,
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
6850......
sounds batter..... than 6250!!
i have always believed that the secret to making big hp has something to do with turning big rpm's
in big time motorsports its all about turning some big numbers.
nascar limits restrictor plate races to 7500 rpm. on the short tracks they limit the rpm's to 9750.
in cart,before they were done ,they had an rpm limit of 14.500
last year in f1 the v10's were limited to 19,500 rpm's
this year with the new v8's they will limit the rpm's to 21,000
there must be somethig to it!?!?
id be happy with 8000 out of my 3 valve!!!!
jay
Jay,
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
6850......
sounds batter..... than 6250!!
i have always believed that the secret to making big hp has something to do with turning big rpm's
in big time motorsports its all about turning some big numbers.
nascar limits restrictor plate races to 7500 rpm. on the short tracks they limit the rpm's to 9750.
in cart,before they were done ,they had an rpm limit of 14.500
last year in f1 the v10's were limited to 19,500 rpm's
this year with the new v8's they will limit the rpm's to 21,000
there must be somethig to it!?!?
id be happy with 8000 out of my 3 valve!!!!
jay
2/25/06, 01:30 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: August 17, 2005
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi bosshog,
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Boss Hog @ February 24, 2006, 6:51 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Jay,
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Boss Hog @ February 24, 2006, 6:51 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Jay,
I too would like to go the "Cam" route. Crane, Crower and CompCams have all promised cams for the 3V but as far as I know, none are available yet. Also, changing the cam(s) is not as easy as it was in the SB Chevy, nor as cheap. Word we got on the Crane cams was that they require valve reliefs on all but their smallest grind [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif[/img] Also, you have to remember, the Chevy SB has been around for 50 years and is an excellent performer so you would expect a lot more market availability.
As to revs, I have a C&L/Predetor setup and have my rev limiter set at 6850. The engine shows no signs of falling on its face at that level.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
2/25/06, 06:17 AM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PonyDNA @ February 25, 2006, 3:33 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Hi bosshog,
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
[/b][/quote]
Hi Chip,
First, welcome to the forum. Always good to hear a new opinion as all are welcome here [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] As you might suspect, I have an opinion that does not exactly match yours. I have seen plenty of N/A dyno curves so I am very aware of the shape, including the fall-off at high rpm. But I disagree with you on the "need" to run past 6,000 rpm. If your "need" includes the desire to turn in the lowest possible ET at the drag strip, then reving past 6,000 rpm will help with that "need".
Acceleration is a result of the torque applied to the road acting against the mass of the vehicle, not the torque available at the flywheel. The difference between the two is of course the transmission and rear end gears which act as torque multipliers. If you study the gear splits in the manual transmission, you will find that it is very advantageous to keep the car in 1st as long as possible.
Example: With stock gears at 42 mph (1st to 2nd shift point):
1st gear at 6500 rpm: 198 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 3.38 = 2376 ft. lb. applied to the road
2nd gear at 3800 rpm: 290 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 2.00 = 2059 ft. lb. applied to the road
As you can see, even at 6,500 rpm, the car will be accelerating faster in 1st than it would be in 2nd, at the same mph. The root of the problem is the very large 1st to 2nd gear split. The same is not true of the 3rd to 4th shift, which has a much smaller split. If you work out the numbers, you will see that 6100 to 6200 is the ideal 3rd to 4th shift point.
As far as valve float and the bottom end holding together, I can only relate my experience, which may or may not match other people’s experience. I have not experienced any valve float and the bottom end is still together.
And yes, for me, it does make it faster as verified at the drag strip. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The Boss Hog
Hi bosshog,
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
[/b][/quote]
Hi Chip,
First, welcome to the forum. Always good to hear a new opinion as all are welcome here [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] As you might suspect, I have an opinion that does not exactly match yours. I have seen plenty of N/A dyno curves so I am very aware of the shape, including the fall-off at high rpm. But I disagree with you on the "need" to run past 6,000 rpm. If your "need" includes the desire to turn in the lowest possible ET at the drag strip, then reving past 6,000 rpm will help with that "need".
Acceleration is a result of the torque applied to the road acting against the mass of the vehicle, not the torque available at the flywheel. The difference between the two is of course the transmission and rear end gears which act as torque multipliers. If you study the gear splits in the manual transmission, you will find that it is very advantageous to keep the car in 1st as long as possible.
Example: With stock gears at 42 mph (1st to 2nd shift point):
1st gear at 6500 rpm: 198 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 3.38 = 2376 ft. lb. applied to the road
2nd gear at 3800 rpm: 290 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 2.00 = 2059 ft. lb. applied to the road
As you can see, even at 6,500 rpm, the car will be accelerating faster in 1st than it would be in 2nd, at the same mph. The root of the problem is the very large 1st to 2nd gear split. The same is not true of the 3rd to 4th shift, which has a much smaller split. If you work out the numbers, you will see that 6100 to 6200 is the ideal 3rd to 4th shift point.
As far as valve float and the bottom end holding together, I can only relate my experience, which may or may not match other people’s experience. I have not experienced any valve float and the bottom end is still together.
And yes, for me, it does make it faster as verified at the drag strip. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The Boss Hog
2/25/06, 06:09 PM
#7
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Boss Hog @ February 25, 2006, 8:20 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Hi Chip,
First, welcome to the forum. Always good to hear a new opinion as all are welcome here [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] As you might suspect, I have an opinion that does not exactly match yours. I have seen plenty of N/A dyno curves so I am very aware of the shape, including the fall-off at high rpm. But I disagree with you on the "need" to run past 6,000 rpm. If your "need" includes the desire to turn in the lowest possible ET at the drag strip, then reving past 6,000 rpm will help with that "need".
Acceleration is a result of the torque applied to the road acting against the mass of the vehicle, not the torque available at the flywheel. The difference between the two is of course the transmission and rear end gears which act as torque multipliers. If you study the gear splits in the manual transmission, you will find that it is very advantageous to keep the car in 1st as long as possible.
Example: With stock gears at 42 mph (1st to 2nd shift point):
1st gear at 6500 rpm: 198 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 3.38 = 2376 ft. lb. applied to the road
2nd gear at 3800 rpm: 290 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 2.00 = 2059 ft. lb. applied to the road
As you can see, even at 6,500 rpm, the car will be accelerating faster in 1st than it would be in 2nd, at the same mph. The root of the problem is the very large 1st to 2nd gear split. The same is not true of the 3rd to 4th shift, which has a much smaller split. If you work out the numbers, you will see that 6100 to 6200 is the ideal 3rd to 4th shift point.
As far as valve float and the bottom end holding together, I can only relate my experience, which may or may not match other people’s experience. I have not experienced any valve float and the bottom end is still together.
And yes, for me, it does make it faster as verified at the drag strip. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
no secret i'm an n/a high rpm light weight fan. my last two cars weights combined were less than this mustang
and thats adding me twice! going fast is a product of hp:weight. i have seen a couple companies making pistons and stroker kits but i think i'll just use a 5.4 iron block good stock stroke crank and light rods. compression can be as high as 12.0:1 on 94 octane but timing will seroiusly suffer so i'll probably stay around 11.0:1 then make up for the compression with some creative cam grinding. i'm a fan of custom grinds. since my combo is not an off the shelf engine and my usees for the car are different than what cam companies have to deal with on everyday rides i feel this is the best way to go.comp is great at this stuff. i had a lower compression (10.5:1)in my s/g car for a breif time and they ground a came for me that made more cylinder pressure than my 15:1 motor made. cool stuff can be done with cam timing if you have the paitience to wait it out and get a custom grind. look at what they do with those f-body cars in stockeliminator. 9.90's with the stock lift cam.stock heads(no porting) stock intake ,t/b etc. amazing! thats the kind of performance i want. wheels up well in the 11's and all n/a. heck it's even easier we have a 5 speed auto or a tremec 5 speed to do it with.
Hi Chip,
First, welcome to the forum. Always good to hear a new opinion as all are welcome here [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumb.gif[/img] As you might suspect, I have an opinion that does not exactly match yours. I have seen plenty of N/A dyno curves so I am very aware of the shape, including the fall-off at high rpm. But I disagree with you on the "need" to run past 6,000 rpm. If your "need" includes the desire to turn in the lowest possible ET at the drag strip, then reving past 6,000 rpm will help with that "need".
Acceleration is a result of the torque applied to the road acting against the mass of the vehicle, not the torque available at the flywheel. The difference between the two is of course the transmission and rear end gears which act as torque multipliers. If you study the gear splits in the manual transmission, you will find that it is very advantageous to keep the car in 1st as long as possible.
Example: With stock gears at 42 mph (1st to 2nd shift point):
1st gear at 6500 rpm: 198 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 3.38 = 2376 ft. lb. applied to the road
2nd gear at 3800 rpm: 290 ft. lb. x 3.55 x 2.00 = 2059 ft. lb. applied to the road
As you can see, even at 6,500 rpm, the car will be accelerating faster in 1st than it would be in 2nd, at the same mph. The root of the problem is the very large 1st to 2nd gear split. The same is not true of the 3rd to 4th shift, which has a much smaller split. If you work out the numbers, you will see that 6100 to 6200 is the ideal 3rd to 4th shift point.
As far as valve float and the bottom end holding together, I can only relate my experience, which may or may not match other people’s experience. I have not experienced any valve float and the bottom end is still together.
And yes, for me, it does make it faster as verified at the drag strip. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/04.gif[/img]
Like I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The Boss Hog
[/b][/quote]
no secret i'm an n/a high rpm light weight fan. my last two cars weights combined were less than this mustang
and thats adding me twice! going fast is a product of hp:weight. i have seen a couple companies making pistons and stroker kits but i think i'll just use a 5.4 iron block good stock stroke crank and light rods. compression can be as high as 12.0:1 on 94 octane but timing will seroiusly suffer so i'll probably stay around 11.0:1 then make up for the compression with some creative cam grinding. i'm a fan of custom grinds. since my combo is not an off the shelf engine and my usees for the car are different than what cam companies have to deal with on everyday rides i feel this is the best way to go.comp is great at this stuff. i had a lower compression (10.5:1)in my s/g car for a breif time and they ground a came for me that made more cylinder pressure than my 15:1 motor made. cool stuff can be done with cam timing if you have the paitience to wait it out and get a custom grind. look at what they do with those f-body cars in stockeliminator. 9.90's with the stock lift cam.stock heads(no porting) stock intake ,t/b etc. amazing! thats the kind of performance i want. wheels up well in the 11's and all n/a. heck it's even easier we have a 5 speed auto or a tremec 5 speed to do it with.
2/25/06, 10:36 PM
#8
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 7, 2005
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PonyDNA @ February 25, 2006, 12:33 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Hi bosshog,
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
[/b][/quote]
case in point:
my first time to the strip I ran a best of 13.46 @ 105.7 shifting at 6000rpm.
Immediately after that with sim engine temp, and WORSE 60' (2.13 versus 2.07 for the 13.46), i ran 13.21 @ 106.5 simply by shifting at 6400rpm. This I again repeated after some mods other than just gears were done. With my dyno tune and pullies, shifting at 5900-6krpm i pulled a 13.19 best time @ 108.x. Immediately before that i ran 13.11 shifting at 6200. Immediately after trying to shift lower, i ran a 12.97 @ 110.8 by shifting at 6400rpm.
I am completely confident that larger gains above 6k seen on blown applications are the same curves as NA, just scaled up due to more air availability. btw, i would not trust taking a car with more than 400rwhp above 6200rpm either unless its built and has cams specifically for that application.
case in point 2:
original dyno tune was ruler flat from 5600 to 6300rpm, where it dropped by 1.5rwhp from peak at 6400rpm.
case in point 3:
power jumps by ~8rwhp from 5300rpm to 5850, where it was let off prematurely. again, this shows that power continues to climb past 5300rpm, and based on some blown graphs (i know you already said blown application gets more power at higher rpms than NA, but still), peaks are well past 6250rpm.
Hi bosshog,
I have some bad news for you. The 3-valve motor's power curve is absolutely ruller flat by 5,300RPM when dyno'd N/A. Only supecharged cars have HP curves that keep rising with RPM past 5,300RPM. There is no good reason to shift past 6,000RPM unless you need to hold off shifting to save time to speed. I don't think the stock bottom end even in N/A form is safe much past 6,500RPM for any length of time. Avtually I undestand that valve float is a problem by 6,500RPM. You can always install a set of behives but there are still no virgin billet cams from a major grinder quite yet.
People are breaking rods in blower cars at low RPM on the stock bottom ends. IMO with the powdered metal rods you takes your chances over 6,200RPM or so. Given the power curve or lack of any power above 5,300RPM why bother to turn past the motor past 6,000 until there are cams and a tune that will work to give you a more normal power curve? It won't make you go any faster until then.
Cheers
[/b][/quote]
case in point:
my first time to the strip I ran a best of 13.46 @ 105.7 shifting at 6000rpm.
Immediately after that with sim engine temp, and WORSE 60' (2.13 versus 2.07 for the 13.46), i ran 13.21 @ 106.5 simply by shifting at 6400rpm. This I again repeated after some mods other than just gears were done. With my dyno tune and pullies, shifting at 5900-6krpm i pulled a 13.19 best time @ 108.x. Immediately before that i ran 13.11 shifting at 6200. Immediately after trying to shift lower, i ran a 12.97 @ 110.8 by shifting at 6400rpm.
I am completely confident that larger gains above 6k seen on blown applications are the same curves as NA, just scaled up due to more air availability. btw, i would not trust taking a car with more than 400rwhp above 6200rpm either unless its built and has cams specifically for that application.
case in point 2:
original dyno tune was ruler flat from 5600 to 6300rpm, where it dropped by 1.5rwhp from peak at 6400rpm.
case in point 3:
power jumps by ~8rwhp from 5300rpm to 5850, where it was let off prematurely. again, this shows that power continues to climb past 5300rpm, and based on some blown graphs (i know you already said blown application gets more power at higher rpms than NA, but still), peaks are well past 6250rpm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rando
2010-2014 Mustang
8
8/25/21 11:12 AM