05 V6 Runs 11's!
10/28/05, 09:00 PM
#1
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 4, 2005
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some test & tune tonight yield us 11.87, 11.83, & 11.81 at 117 MPH at Milan Dragway. Stock longblock with a 12psi single turbo system.
Timeslips and dyno sheet to follow...............
Timeslips and dyno sheet to follow...............
10/28/05, 09:25 PM
#4
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW, congrats!
Looking forward to the sheets!
Is there a link or any info on this car we can see. Pics, parts, specs??
also is the turbo the same one thats available to us btw?
Looking forward to the sheets!
Is there a link or any info on this car we can see. Pics, parts, specs??
also is the turbo the same one thats available to us btw?
10/29/05, 03:52 AM
#5
Awesome!!!!! And that is on a single turbo only, very impressive!!!!
Glad to know our 6's can hold up!
Glad to know our 6's can hold up!
10/29/05, 04:14 AM
#6
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mike@PowerHouse@October 28, 2005, 7:03 PM
Some test & tune tonight yield us 11.87, 11.83, & 11.81 at 117 MPH at Milan Dragway. Stock longblock with a 12psi single turbo system.
Timeslips and dyno sheet to follow...............
Some test & tune tonight yield us 11.87, 11.83, & 11.81 at 117 MPH at Milan Dragway. Stock longblock with a 12psi single turbo system.
Timeslips and dyno sheet to follow...............
Well MR. Bowen, you have delivered on the promise you made to us!! You promised an 11 sec V6 Mustang with a Single Turbo system!! To top it off, you promised it would happen on the stock long block!
My hats off to you Mike! You are a man of your word! You have given all V6 owners a confidence that is really hard to describe.. Your hard work and effort into the 05 V6 Mustang, was a relentless pursuit at a motivated goal.. You made it happen! You have brought 10's to the 2005 Mustang GT, and 11's to the 2005 Mustang V6, both on all stock motors from the Ford Factory! Needless to say, you are absolutley one of the best!
10/30/05, 04:21 PM
#8
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 18, 2005
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by scrming@October 30, 2005, 7:06 PM
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
So---how was it?
And did they drive YOUR car?? hehe
10/30/05, 04:33 PM
#9
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by scrming@October 30, 2005, 3:06 PM
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
I gotta run Scrming! Sorry i missed this post earlier.. Can you ask Powerhouse to post the 1/4mile receipt, and Dyno graph please? Thanks!
Also, please tell us all how the ride went, so I can read it later.. Thanks!
10/30/05, 04:48 PM
#10
Originally posted by scrming@October 30, 2005, 6:06 PM
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
Guess who got a ride in an 11 seccond, single turbo V6 car today????
wow!!! We need details asap!
10/30/05, 05:06 PM
#11
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hehehe.... I'm still grinning if that tells you anything! We just went on a short little jaunt around the block... He kept apoligizing for not really being able to open the car up... And I kept telling him there was no need to apologize! I could tell a lot just from the short bursts off the lights! This car is BAD hiney!!! It definitely squeezed me back in the seat! I kept forgetting this is a V6!!! It was pretty much INSANE! LOL! Without actually driving it was hard to actually determine "tubo lag" but from where I was sitting it sure didn't seem like there was much, if any!
Mike also kept apoligizing for all the squeaks and rattles... You have to remember this is still just a prototype... Still for a prototype it looked good!
Man, all I can say is... I think I need to start saving my pennies! LOL!
Mike also kept apoligizing for all the squeaks and rattles... You have to remember this is still just a prototype... Still for a prototype it looked good!
Man, all I can say is... I think I need to start saving my pennies! LOL!
10/30/05, 05:07 PM
#12
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MSP@October 30, 2005, 6:36 PM
I gotta run Scrming! Sorry i missed this post earlier.. Can you ask Powerhouse to post the 1/4mile receipt, and Dyno graph please? Thanks!
Also, please tell us all how the ride went, so I can read it later.. Thanks!
I gotta run Scrming! Sorry i missed this post earlier.. Can you ask Powerhouse to post the 1/4mile receipt, and Dyno graph please? Thanks!
Also, please tell us all how the ride went, so I can read it later.. Thanks!
10/31/05, 08:12 AM
#13
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 4, 2005
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the delay guys, but we were away from the shop over the weekend, hence the “out of town trackâ€.
If you look at the timestamp on the timesheets you will realize that the runs are nearly back to back with little or no cooldown. Basically what ever we received while waiting in the staging lanes.
The dyno sheet is From Alternative Auto in Mt Clemons MI.
We opt for “third party†dyno results for the simple reason of authentication, which would be mostly for any disbeliever’s claims of poorly adjusted or “tuned dynosâ€. The afr on the above pull was 11.5:1
We use the 104 octane Sunoco GT unleaded race fuel for the sake of safety and repeatability, especially this time of year where different types of pump fuels will begin to surface with antifreeze/antigels, which isn’t available in the summer months.
This car has the stock shortblock, and hope to use it for some time, I would rather not loose a motor to a gas station diluting their fuels in efforts to generate more profit, a conspiracy theory, yes, but I am sure that it has been done.
10/31/05, 09:51 AM
#15
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also for all the 05 V6 owners, I think you can pretty much conclude from these numbers, that with your SOHC 4.0 motor, we all lucked out with it and it is no slouch by any means.. In stock form with all factory parts and internals, the engine is masterpiece of innovation and design.. We got lucky guys.. This could have easily went either way.. I tend to give credit to Ford for making sure the V6 version of the 2005 Mustang was well thought out and planned.. A surprise none the less..
With Mike adding his own design Single turbo system, which is should be retail soon, in conjunction with the Stock SOHC 4.0, we are able to see that Ford had really great expectations for this motor that isnt apparent to the average Mustang guru.. Its easy to fall off track and discredit the motor for a lack of 2 additional cylinders, when your accustomed to Mustangs with V8 power.. But one thing these numbers do show is confidence can be maintained in the integrity of the SOHC 4.0 motor and its design and internal implementation..
I do have a question for Mike Bowen however.. This is to come straight out and tell us based on his extensive race driven tunning and modification experience, how is he struck by the SOHC 4.0? What are some strong points that you have come to know about the motor, and also what do we need to watch out for? This means, if there is something you would change on the motor for reliability reasons, what would it be? Is there something you had to do, or something you would recommend? Or is the motor in a position where it could run these types of numbers reliably over a longterm period with worry to the internals?
With Mike adding his own design Single turbo system, which is should be retail soon, in conjunction with the Stock SOHC 4.0, we are able to see that Ford had really great expectations for this motor that isnt apparent to the average Mustang guru.. Its easy to fall off track and discredit the motor for a lack of 2 additional cylinders, when your accustomed to Mustangs with V8 power.. But one thing these numbers do show is confidence can be maintained in the integrity of the SOHC 4.0 motor and its design and internal implementation..
I do have a question for Mike Bowen however.. This is to come straight out and tell us based on his extensive race driven tunning and modification experience, how is he struck by the SOHC 4.0? What are some strong points that you have come to know about the motor, and also what do we need to watch out for? This means, if there is something you would change on the motor for reliability reasons, what would it be? Is there something you had to do, or something you would recommend? Or is the motor in a position where it could run these types of numbers reliably over a longterm period with worry to the internals?
11/1/05, 07:55 AM
#16
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 4, 2005
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSP, not to rain on your parade but I can tell you that the 4.0 is literally an afterthought.
The motor is the same as the 4.0 push rod, which I believe is some variant from the early 2.8.
Where tha cam used to be is a jackshaft, there is a timing chain that runs from the crank to the jackshaft, then a chain that runs from the jackshaft to the front of the cam on one bank of the motor, then at the other end of the jackshaft there is a second timing chain to runs the opposing banks camshaft.
There is also no "keyway" to locate the cams to the cam gear. A little shady if you ask me.
Now, there is also an additional chain that runs from the crank to a counter blance in the oil pan, that chain runs a gear to gear setup that makes the balancer rotate in the opposite direction of the crank.
Basically this motor has more chains then your typical MR T starter kit.
I would say that 300 rwhp is mostly safe (depending on the tune) on a stock short block, but if your goals were much higher I would definitly be looking into a set of pistons at minimum.
The motor is the same as the 4.0 push rod, which I believe is some variant from the early 2.8.
Where tha cam used to be is a jackshaft, there is a timing chain that runs from the crank to the jackshaft, then a chain that runs from the jackshaft to the front of the cam on one bank of the motor, then at the other end of the jackshaft there is a second timing chain to runs the opposing banks camshaft.
There is also no "keyway" to locate the cams to the cam gear. A little shady if you ask me.
Now, there is also an additional chain that runs from the crank to a counter blance in the oil pan, that chain runs a gear to gear setup that makes the balancer rotate in the opposite direction of the crank.
Basically this motor has more chains then your typical MR T starter kit.
I would say that 300 rwhp is mostly safe (depending on the tune) on a stock short block, but if your goals were much higher I would definitly be looking into a set of pistons at minimum.
11/1/05, 02:33 PM
#17
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mike@PowerHouse@November 1, 2005, 6:58 AM
MSP, not to rain on your parade but I can tell you that the 4.0 is literally an afterthought.
The motor is the same as the 4.0 push rod, which I believe is some variant from the early 2.8.
Where tha cam used to be is a jackshaft, there is a timing chain that runs from the crank to the jackshaft, then a chain that runs from the jackshaft to the front of the cam on one bank of the motor, then at the other end of the jackshaft there is a second timing chain to runs the opposing banks camshaft.
There is also no "keyway" to locate the cams to the cam gear. A little shady if you ask me.
Now, there is also an additional chain that runs from the crank to a counter blance in the oil pan, that chain runs a gear to gear setup that makes the balancer rotate in the opposite direction of the crank.
Basically this motor has more chains then your typical MR T starter kit.
I would say that 300 rwhp is mostly safe (depending on the tune) on a stock short block, but if your goals were much higher I would definitly be looking into a set of pistons at minimum.
MSP, not to rain on your parade but I can tell you that the 4.0 is literally an afterthought.
The motor is the same as the 4.0 push rod, which I believe is some variant from the early 2.8.
Where tha cam used to be is a jackshaft, there is a timing chain that runs from the crank to the jackshaft, then a chain that runs from the jackshaft to the front of the cam on one bank of the motor, then at the other end of the jackshaft there is a second timing chain to runs the opposing banks camshaft.
There is also no "keyway" to locate the cams to the cam gear. A little shady if you ask me.
Now, there is also an additional chain that runs from the crank to a counter blance in the oil pan, that chain runs a gear to gear setup that makes the balancer rotate in the opposite direction of the crank.
Basically this motor has more chains then your typical MR T starter kit.
I would say that 300 rwhp is mostly safe (depending on the tune) on a stock short block, but if your goals were much higher I would definitly be looking into a set of pistons at minimum.
Not raining on my parade at all Mike.. So basically what your saying is, although its ok to post numbers in dyno sheets which show the motor is good for 12psi of boost and 400RWHP, with 441RWTQ you have boiled it down to an effective 300RWHP.. So of course you wont be running your turbo kit @ 12psi.. Alittle deceptive if you ask me Mike..
@ ALL
Bare with me..
Although I appreciate the candidness of your report, you seem to have changed your tune Mike.. Now I appreciate who you are, and what you have been doing.. I have a great respect for you. But you just basically tried to dump on the motor as if your taking up sides around here Mike.. You post a screenshot of a Dyno using your system you spent so much time on, but yet critisize the powerplant in which you created it.. I detec alittle bias in your post, and its not what I would have expected from you.. So why did you waste your time on the motor if you have such little faith in it? I dont know about you Mike, I am alittle unsure now.. You have chosen sides it appears, which is quite ridiculous..
@ALL
We all know Mike and trust his judgement, but his statements and actions are alittle confilicted.. I am not sure what to make of it, except to say it sounds like a staunch change in position.. He runs the stock shortblock upto 12PSI @ runs an 11.8.. But yet dumps on the motor and calls for 300RWHP.. I need to digest his statements, or perhaps he can say what he means, and mean what he says.. Its definatley conflicted at this point, and it bothers me..
I am not sure to chuck the info out the window and basically disregard his opinion, or throw away the motor.. LOL!! I know some are going to get upset with me for being straight forward with Mike.. But I must do what I have to do, to gather the appropriate info from him.. I know I will be bashed for questioning him like this.. I'm ready for it.. But reading his post disgust me.. I know for a fact I'm going to get bashed for speaking so forwardly.. Sorry guys.. If someone doesnt cut to the chase around here, we are all left with a sick feeling and a distorted view of the situation.. This wont happen on my watch.. I tried to be as respectfull as possible.. If I was to harsh I apologize.. But Mike has alot questions that need to be answered.. Whether he chooses to answer them is up to him.. Should he not respond, then disregard the post he just used to bash our V6's... Put it this way, I aint buying no 4.6 Mike.. I'de go 5.4 before I would touch a 4.6.. So help us with this 4.0 or lets call it a day..
11/1/05, 02:58 PM
#18
Originally posted by MSP@November 1, 2005, 4:36 PM
Not raining on my parade at all Mike.. So basically what your saying is, although its ok to post numbers in dyno sheets which show the motor is good for 12psi of boost and 400RWHP, with 441RWTQ you have boiled it down to an effective 300RWHP.. So of course you wont be running your turbo kit @ 12psi.. Alittle deceptive if you ask me Mike..
@ ALL
Bare with me..
Although I appreciate the candidness of your report, you seem to have changed your tune Mike.. Now I appreciate who you are, and what you have been doing.. I have a great respect for you. But you just basically tried to dump on the motor as if your taking up sides around here Mike.. You post a screenshot of a Dyno using your system you spent so much time on, but yet critisize the powerplant in which you created it.. I detec alittle bias in your post, and its not what I would have expected from you.. So why did you waste your time on the motor if you have such little faith in it? I dont know about you Mike, I am alittle unsure now.. You have chosen sides it appears, which is quite ridiculous..
@ALL
We all know Mike and trust his judgement, but his statements and actions are alittle confilicted.. I am not sure what to make of it, except to say it sounds like a staunch change in position.. He runs the stock shortblock upto 12PSI @ runs an 11.8.. But yet dumps on the motor and calls for 300RWHP.. I need to digest his statements, or perhaps he can say what he means, and mean what he says.. Its definatley conflicted at this point, and it bothers me..
I am not sure to chuck the info out the window and basically disregard his opinion, or throw away the motor.. LOL!! I know some are going to get upset with me for being straight forward with Mike.. But I must do what I have to do, to gather the appropriate info from him.. I know I will be bashed for questioning him like this.. I'm ready for it.. But reading his post disgust me.. I know for a fact I'm going to get bashed for speaking so forwardly.. Sorry guys.. If someone doesnt cut to the chase around here, we are all left with a sick feeling and a distorted view of the situation.. This wont happen on my watch.. I tried to be as respectfull as possible.. If I was to harsh I apologize.. But Mike has alot questions that need to be answered.. Whether he chooses to answer them is up to him.. Should he not respond, then disregard the post he just used to bash our V6's... Put it this way, I aint buying no 4.6 Mike.. I'de go 5.4 before I would touch a 4.6.. So help us with this 4.0 or lets call it a day..
Not raining on my parade at all Mike.. So basically what your saying is, although its ok to post numbers in dyno sheets which show the motor is good for 12psi of boost and 400RWHP, with 441RWTQ you have boiled it down to an effective 300RWHP.. So of course you wont be running your turbo kit @ 12psi.. Alittle deceptive if you ask me Mike..
@ ALL
Bare with me..
Although I appreciate the candidness of your report, you seem to have changed your tune Mike.. Now I appreciate who you are, and what you have been doing.. I have a great respect for you. But you just basically tried to dump on the motor as if your taking up sides around here Mike.. You post a screenshot of a Dyno using your system you spent so much time on, but yet critisize the powerplant in which you created it.. I detec alittle bias in your post, and its not what I would have expected from you.. So why did you waste your time on the motor if you have such little faith in it? I dont know about you Mike, I am alittle unsure now.. You have chosen sides it appears, which is quite ridiculous..
@ALL
We all know Mike and trust his judgement, but his statements and actions are alittle confilicted.. I am not sure what to make of it, except to say it sounds like a staunch change in position.. He runs the stock shortblock upto 12PSI @ runs an 11.8.. But yet dumps on the motor and calls for 300RWHP.. I need to digest his statements, or perhaps he can say what he means, and mean what he says.. Its definatley conflicted at this point, and it bothers me..
I am not sure to chuck the info out the window and basically disregard his opinion, or throw away the motor.. LOL!! I know some are going to get upset with me for being straight forward with Mike.. But I must do what I have to do, to gather the appropriate info from him.. I know I will be bashed for questioning him like this.. I'm ready for it.. But reading his post disgust me.. I know for a fact I'm going to get bashed for speaking so forwardly.. Sorry guys.. If someone doesnt cut to the chase around here, we are all left with a sick feeling and a distorted view of the situation.. This wont happen on my watch.. I tried to be as respectfull as possible.. If I was to harsh I apologize.. But Mike has alot questions that need to be answered.. Whether he chooses to answer them is up to him.. Should he not respond, then disregard the post he just used to bash our V6's... Put it this way, I aint buying no 4.6 Mike.. I'de go 5.4 before I would touch a 4.6.. So help us with this 4.0 or lets call it a day..
I can understand where you are comming from, and its always good to get everything on the table. I prefer the direct approach. I think you bring up good points that need clairification.
For me personally, I read his message several times, but what I took away from it was a little different. My personal goal with this car is 360-400 RWHP, more towards 400 and per his message, I can do it with new pistons. I already knew I would need new pistons if I want to go 400 RWHP and he just reconfirmed it, which set my expectations. I am prepared for this, and quite pleased to know I will need to make little modifications on top of this. Unless I need to make more mods to it? He said at a minimum, so what else should I add to make the engine run safely at 400RWHP???
Also, I am not sure he was bashing the 4.0, just bringing up some issues on it. I mean, there are a ton of items in the design/performance of it that can be put in the PRO category. Perhaps he is just giving us a heads up of things to look for when we heavily modify our vechicles. I bet he could outline a ton of issues on the 4.6 as well. My understanding is that these 4.0's were originally developed by Ford Europe (which may explain the use of the chains), this would also explain the mix of metrix parts in it. My understanding is also that it was originally a truck engine designed for use in the Explorer and Ranger, which explains why it can handle 300 RWHP with no modification, and 400 RWHP with little/moderate modification. To me that is a good thing.
I'm not as knowledgable as a majority here when it comes to mechanics, but I am a engineer by trade and then to look at everything, PRO's and CON's, and determine the best route based on my goals.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on any of this.
11/1/05, 03:06 PM
#19
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about this guys explaination of the short comings of the 4.0L... he mentions all the chains too...
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/388052-post50.html
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/388052-post50.html
11/1/05, 03:06 PM
#20
Well, MSP. If I may interject in your lengthly assault on Mike from Powerhouse411, (It is an assault afterall with you mentioning his name at the end of of nearly every sentence isn't it, MSP)
He is merely showing you what is possible at the outer edge of the 4.0L engine's capability. (Just a reminder a reliable 300 rwhp is absolutely NO slouch.) If someone has the ability and the $$ he can, if his heart desires, build an engine with 400+ rwhp/400+ lb/ft of torque. You asked many questions of him (Mike, if you do not remember) regarding the 4.0 motor and he answered them truthfully. He clearly stated that if you want to run above the 300rwhp mark a set of pistons would be required at minimum. To me this does not sound like a whole lot to put into the engine (IMHO heavier duty head gaskets, and maybe a set of rods would also be a must at this juncture!)
Finally the 4.0L engine is what Ford gave us at this time. Remember "it is what it is" and he's is doing his best to make it better. And I do not think he was in anyway slamming the engine as you imply. He is after all still in the development phase, so you may want to cut him some slack.
FYI this is nothing to get upset over as we all have our own opinions on the engine. (I personally was hoping for some form of Duratec 6
.)
He is merely showing you what is possible at the outer edge of the 4.0L engine's capability. (Just a reminder a reliable 300 rwhp is absolutely NO slouch.) If someone has the ability and the $$ he can, if his heart desires, build an engine with 400+ rwhp/400+ lb/ft of torque. You asked many questions of him (Mike, if you do not remember) regarding the 4.0 motor and he answered them truthfully. He clearly stated that if you want to run above the 300rwhp mark a set of pistons would be required at minimum. To me this does not sound like a whole lot to put into the engine (IMHO heavier duty head gaskets, and maybe a set of rods would also be a must at this juncture!)
Finally the 4.0L engine is what Ford gave us at this time. Remember "it is what it is" and he's is doing his best to make it better. And I do not think he was in anyway slamming the engine as you imply. He is after all still in the development phase, so you may want to cut him some slack.
FYI this is nothing to get upset over as we all have our own opinions on the engine. (I personally was hoping for some form of Duratec 6
.)