MSP

You make some good points my friend.. We all knew about the pistons months ago.. Their not forged like the rods are.. We know this, but he made alot of mentions as to the design of the motor, and its ability.. I hope people will read my post from a customers standpoint.. What I mean, is Mike @ Powerhouse is a retail builder.. We are his customers, and we should be able to ask forward questions without fear of the post to be taken as a challenge to his authority.. Just like Ford and GM must satisfy customers, so does Mike @ Powerhouse.. For it is us who will consider or not to invest in his Turbo setup.. So I'm not sure how he will respond to my post.. I do know that if I plan on buying his Turbo kit, he better answer my questions with all do respect.. He needs us..

But I do like your opinion rygenstormlocke, and you know i value it.. But Mike has posted conflicted information, with a slight tone of little faith in the motor.. Its not about the pistons, its the way he judged the design of the motor.. Which is ok, if he has more to add to it.. If he can explain how is it he was able to successfully run the motor @ 12PSI with all stock internals, and guys around here with GT's are blowing up 4.6's with 9PSI's of boost.. Do you see the confliction in his position?

Hopefully, people will view my comments as an approach to better understand his overall position, as one of his future customers.. Where I feel alittle debate is in order based on his comments.. He's in the Customer Satisfaction business, and owes us a good question and answer session.. It could be perhaps that he runs his business slightly different than the status quo, and may feel I am not worth explaining his previous post.. This is ok as well, but I use my pocket book to show my satifaction for the customer support dept.. If I like it, and can trust in the reliablity of the info provided, then I can purchase said items, and can trust in a long lasting relationship.. I mean, why invest in his turbo, if he doesnt like the design of our motors.. Once I blow it up using 12psi, of boost, he'll probably stop taking my emails.. I am a customer to him first and foremost.. I need questions answered and expect them to be answered.. If not, I'll count on a different company for my cars performance upgrades..

Tiberius1701

BTW, regarding the chains, when I first saw the drawings of this engine back in '94, I could barely contain my amusement, we on the service side have been through a lot with this motor but is has arrived at the point that is is nearly bulletproof in normal day to day operation!

MSP

Thats great Tiberius, thanks for your input.. What are your overall impressions of 12PSI @ 400RWHP, and 441RWTQ? Did he drive the car home, or did he forget to mention that after he ran through the traps he blew up the motor? Or did he forget to mention that once the car was back at the shop, he did a compression test on the cylinders, and the car failed this test? Or did he forget to mention that he screwed up the harmonic balancer.?

What hasn't Mike told us that we need to know to put his comments into some type of context?

scrming

Mike went throught the traps on Friday night... he drove me around town on Sunday... LOL!

Personally... I'm thinking something in the 275RWHP will be plenty for me... I mean, running around town with 200RWHP and the 4.10s is enough to get me in trouble already!!!

Fazm

<---wants 250rwhp
n/a 13 second v6 is all i want, then i can get the cobra into 10s, then come back to makin the 6 faster

Thomas S

Any time someone is honest with you, you react this way. He's not attacking the engine, he's telling you the truth about it's shortcomings. Mike has spent a lot of his own money pushing this engine farther than anyone else. Just because you can get 400hp out of the engine doesn't mean you should, or that you can reliably for any length of time. The 4.0 isn't a technological masterpiece, no far from it. But that doesn't mean we can't push it and have a little fun. All he is saying is that if you push it too far, for too long it will break. This isn't like the old 5.0. Just apreciate it for what it is.

MSP

Hey Jimp, your post would have been fine without this line..


Any time someone is honest with you, you react this way.

Listen-up Jimp, I can say what I want, when I want, and how I want.. Remove from your mind the ability to lecture me on anything..

MSP

Whats missing Jimp, is Mike's rational for drawing conclusions, which he does not show any proof of.. What I mean, is he made blanket statements about the 4.0, and its design.. This is important, because for one, he has push the engine harder than anyone.. Why would he make these blanket statements? Did he hurt the motor once or twice, and he is embrassed to tell us? If so why? If running too much power would subject the ridiculous timing chains into a situation which would hurt something, did it? If so what?

He has not made this argument yet... Thus his reasoning for first posting that he ran 12PSI on the stock long-block, which tries to give the impression that the motor in itself is fine with 12PSI and there are no problems..

Then a few days later, makes a ridiculous rant about the timing chains.. So did he hurt something? If not why throw out the bash on the 4.0, and not give any midigating circumstances which support such a wild set of idea's.. Idea's of which directly says to all reading this, that the car is garbage..

You must not be able to read between the lines.. Then he says the 4.0 was an after-thought.. We have never heard Mike talk this way.. He has chosen sides.. But your too blind to notice exactly what he is saying, and how it is being said..

MSP

Acutually, as far as I am concerend this discussion from me is over.. I no longer desire his Turbo and will look for another method or company.. There are other Turbo producers out there whose attitude toward the 4.0 is not so scattered..

So keep the Turbo Mike! No need to explain at all why your position of the car has changed so dramatically.. Most guys here may not understand what your true underlying position was, but I do..

Zodiac

Did I miss something somewhere in this thread? o_O

rygenstormlocke

Well, my take is let's see what he comes back with. So far he hasn't put a reply up and I am really curious to get the details from him. For all we know, he might have put the post up after spending all day on the car cause something failed after a dyno pull and they had to put the car up. Could be just a frustration issue. I know being technical myself, I had many sceneros where I was working on a system I believed in...knew it was a good system, but had to troubleshoot a particular part of it for 5 days straight and by that time...my fuse was short and I was ready to kill whoever wrote the code or did the design for that particular module.

My goal here is to find out every detail on what he did to that test car. I'm jazzed cause it's running in the 11's, that is very strong. heck, I will be insanely happy once I hit 13's, for that I envy Scrming every day I wake up.

Regardless on what direction this thread went in, the bottom line is one of our 6's is running in the 11's. And it has been earth shattering, just imagine the response and opinions this thread would get if we dropped in the general section. LOL.

MSP

Yeah, you missed Mike giving a thumbs down to the 4.0, but not giving you any facts, besides wild speculation to support it..

We have spent alot of time and effort in discussions about our cars, without anyone yet telling us a story of how the 4.0 has failed because of a design issue.. Mike post a dyno sheet for 12PSI 400RWHP, and 441RWTQ, but then concludes by blaming a timing chain design, but does not offer up to us any circumstance on how the 2005+ 4.0 Engine design will suffer from it.. People mention older 4.0's and their reliability problems, but we all know the design of this motor is different.. Even the block is different than the other 4.0's..

So what you missed Zodiac, like the rest of us, is where Mike felt he needed to take down the 2005+ 4.0, but not show us one which has been hurt yet, or not show us timing chain issues.. You missed that he used speculation to basically bash our motors but yet post a 12PSI dyno chart..

MSP

This is my point exactly.. Did he break something? Has the 2005+ 4.0 suffered from timing chain issues related to 400RWHP.. Have you heard of one story where the motor has failed? If so by whom, and are there circumstances behind the failure which correlate directly to a design issue in regards to timing chains of the motor..?

We dont need opinions based on speculation from Mike.. We need hard and fast facts that can be proven.. Proven like his dyno chart proves the engine can maintain 12PSI and 400RWHP, along with 441RWTQ, and run 11's.. We dont need speculation... This is what we fight GT guys about all the time is speculation..

If he has an educated opinon, then he needs to post it.. Otherwise he can keep the speculation for those that enjoy it..

rygenstormlocke

Yep, I went and read the entire thread Scrming sent us. Follong the post he put up was some interesting response from Mike. Check it out:

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/2005-4-...html#post388052

Here is what I found interesting:

***************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damage INC
Nothing to back them up? Talking out of my Turdcutter?

Sorry, I don't mean to toot my own horn here, but I've probably got more experience with this engine than anyone here in the forum.

Do you have any idea how overwhelmingly overcomplicated this engine is? It's not like the 4.6, a simple OHC engine. It's plagued with Timing chain cassette failures, Tensioner problems, Valve spring issues..

In case you don't know, I'll try to summarize things. It's got a crankshaft, right? But instead of the crank directly driving the cams, the crank instead turns a long shaft in place of where the camshaft in the old OHV 4.0's was, via a chain. This shaft, called a "Jackshaft" has 2 more chains swinging around it. One chain drives the camshaft for bank 2, and this chain is located in the front of the engine. The other chain is in the BACK, and is basically impossible to access/service without removing the engine completely. This chain drives the bank 1 cam. This rear chain cassette is relatively prone to breaking, and even though Ford has released an updated cassette, it still breaks. The tensioners, however, are on the OUTSIDE if the engine and screw directly through the cylinder heads to try and maintain pressure on the guides.

In attempt to save money, the head castings are identical from side to side, much like the modular engine family. But, unlike the mods, there is no full length timing cover, so the chain guides and chains and cassettes pass through the clinder head castings itself, which is why one chain is driven from the front and one is driven from the rear.

The cam gears aren't keyed by any means either. They rely solely on bolt torque to keep them properly seated on the camshaft. For this reason, under a basic thread pattern, the rotational twist of the jackshaft will inerently try to "loosen" the cam gear retaining bolt for bank 1. So, the bank 1 cam gear bolt is reverse threaded. That may have been the only decent idea that went into this engine.

heck, some of these engines need a balance shaft as well, which is driven by ANOTHER geared shaft, which is driven by ANOTHER chain connected to the crank.

Now, add a relatively weak block, TINY rods, super weak pistons, and 300+ rwhp @ over 6,000 rpms and you might have a vague idea of where I'm coming from.

I've had enough of these things apart to know that I wouldn't EVER try to squeeze any extra power out of one.

Not to mention that the V6 comes with the notoriously useless T-5 transmission and equally worthless 7.5 inch rear axle. The only way that buying a new V6 mustang as a performance option would make sens would be to do it for the initial lower payments and savings on insurance. Then, tear the ENTIRE DRIVETRAIN out of it, sell it, and use the money you've made on it to build up something that might last a few months.

***************************

Dave

You are correct about all the issues with the 4.0. That is why if you want the stock longblock to live just don't spin it that hard. Our Single Turbo Car is done at 5300 RPM, thats one of the benefits of a Turbo System. As for the 7.5 the right parts may make it live longer, but we did swap it out awhile ago. The T-5 is begining to show signs of some problems, but the bigger issue is the clutch. We will continue to push the limits of the stock components of the 4.0 Mustang.
__________________
Mike Bowen
PowerHouse Automotive, LLC
Chassis dyno and SCT custom tuning

***************************

Congrats on the good work! I'm sure if you guys take your time and really put this kit together correctly, then good things may very well come of it.

It's very wise and "Mature" of you to keep the revs low like you've mentioned, becuase it'd be very easy to spin that thing up a few times and get bigger numbers. But, keeping the revs reasonable will certainly prolong engine life in the case of this particular car, and I hope that those looking into your product will keep this in mind, so as not to send and bad feedback towards you guys in case something should go wrong.

As with ALL power adders on ANY engine, they have great potential to severely decrease engine life and increase the changes of catastrophic engine failure. I, personally, see a much greater chance of failure with this particular engine in stock form when compared to the larger V8 assembly. Tossing some stronger parts at the given 6 cylinder would surely allow for a streetable and much more reliable combination however, and if the aftermarket steps up and manufactures some quality parts for this engine then I see it having good chances at becoming a resonable street machine. The only problem there, would be finding people willing to take these things apart. Hehehe, heck, I'm a Ford tech and I hate working on these things

Dave
***************************

Good info Scrming!!! :worship:

MSP

Thats what I thought.. Good job guys.. I knew I detected a change in position... I dont just fly off the handle for no reason..

We can discuss our options later in another thread.. But atleast alittle truth has been found..

Thomas S

Hey, I had the same reaction after reading the thread at modularfords.com. But Damage, Inc makes a lot of sense in what he says. He may have been pouring it on a little thick, but he obviously knows his stuff. If you want this engine to last you can't run it at insane power levels on a daily basis. I think Mike wants to build a turbo kit that will last and won't leave us stranded. And I certainly can't fault him for that.

Autotooner

awesome!

MSP

This is the problem with what happened today.. Mike made a post with bad news, but didnt explain he had problems with the timing chains, and thus is trying to remedy the problem by tunnning the turbo to give out more HP/TQ at a lower RPM..

The link that my man rygenstormlocke put up covers Mikes bases..

So the point is, I think he should have put up his timing chain problems along with the timing chain rant, then I would understand..

It looks like Mike is trying to make the appropriate adjustments to the turbo setup though, which is good.. But he left me hangin on the timing chains, because sense I dont frequent several different forums on a dailey basis, I was completely out of the loop on that discussion, where Mike, and the other guy, who have had good experience shared their situations with the 2005+ 4.0..

So only half of the debate was posted here, and not the full argument for the assumptions, which is never a good way to end a post.. I do however give Mike lots of credit for pursuing a turbo setup which is done at 5300 rpm..

But like I said, all the facts were not here..

@Jimp

This is the info I was looking for.. I noticed you frequent that forum and had a heads up on the info.. You should have shared it..

rygenstormlocke

Also, lets keep in mind that Mike is providing us "behind the scenes" information on this kit. He's the guy sweating the details, testing the modificaitons and trying to come up with a solution that will last. Most tech-head/gear-heads are not the type to be...how should we say it...."client facing". I mean, he is...but more as coleage approach..keeping us informed of how things are going. If he didn't believe in this car...he wouldn't be pushing it to 11's.

rygenstormlocke

LOL. This is the best post yet.

JK