<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SPARTAN VI @ February 3, 2006, 2:30 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Cool stuff. What would the HP/TQ rating be at the fly wheel? About 220-230HP? 260TQ?
[/b][/quote]

Let's see:

Mine (12-15% powertrain loss): HP from 233-241 TQ 271-281
John's: (18-20%): HP from 243-250 Can't remember his TQ

These are estimates only.

Once again, I would like to point out what John, Lidio, and Chris have been saying: Timing advance on these cars is minimal. So the power must be coming from somewhere.

Theories welcome but unfortunately, my little Jezebel cares nothing for conjecture and simply repsonds to the mods and tunes!

 

Hey I have a CAI too, but I'm just saying those guys aren't out of their minds.
Timing is minimal because we want to keep the propogation stage a few degrees ATDC (Ford's specs) and there is very little a tuner would be able to do with an 87 tune. Higher Octanes renders more room.

 

Back to some old-school tech for a sec here (hey that rhymes):

I believe what you are saying about tuners only being able to advance the timing so much. But the purpose of higher octane fuel is to eliminate detonation caused by advancing the timing or raising the compression. In the old-days we would run the highest octane fuel we could find--believe it or not you used to be able to buy 99 octane in the early 70's! You would then manually advance the timing until the car began to detonate, and then back it off just slightly: presto, your custom tune was done--believe it or not we used to be able to advance the timing without computer assistance back in the old days too! This always netted instant hp. Nothing has changed, but I am guessing that variables in the computer's programming prevent too much direct advance of the timing. The computer's pragram probably adjusts the timing up or down as demands are placed on the engine. This would be similar to Honda's VTECH approach, but using the computer insted of cammed timing gears.

I do believe many of the gains I see posted here. Some folks are too enthusiastic, however. These are the ones that fade away or start to attack when you ask them for dynos (I really have no one specific in mind when I say that by the way). Dynos are not everything, but there are only two ways to prove yourself: on the track, or on the dyno. Others I believe are attributing their gains to the wrong modifications by making more than one mod at a time.

I may not start modding my Mustang for some time: I am torn between "stock" or "rock," and I have yet to see the parts that I really want become available. Plus I paid some good money for an extended warranty that I really don't want to void! But my target then would be 225-235 hp at the rear wheel NA with my manual 5-speed. For that I would need: fully tuned headers and a perfectly matching exhaust system; a "ram jet" style intake with a shaker hood; a hotter ignition, wire, and spark-plug set-up (I have not even seen anyone begin to discuss that here); the right octane fuel and a sweet a** tune; and maybe just a few other tricks that I could have up my sleeve. The 235 goal is ambitious, and it may only be at the drag strip--I could have to go with high-flow cats and a straight-through exhaust to get there--but I honestly believe it is realistic.

Joined with a fiberglass or carbon fiber hood, shorter gearing, and a few other tricks, 12s 1/4 miles should be possible. Want to go the next step? If my engine starts to show some wear by the time my warranty runs out I could start from scratch with slightly larger displacement, longer rods, higher compression, a counterweighted crank--all blue-printed and balanced of course--a racing cam, ported and polished heads, an aluminum radiator. Why, at that point even a V-8 GT conversion becomes a realistic option, talk about the ultimate sleeper!!! . . . But ah, but I am getting ahead of myself again. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/screwy.gif[/img]

 

Our EDIS ignition system should be good enough. I don't see the need to upgrade any of it. It makes ~100KV's at the coil, and the spark only takes what it needs, which is about 15KV's.
Change wires, plugs, and according to the O-scope it'll still use ~15kv's to keep the spark going.
Unless we could get a COP setup, that could be pretty sweet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T-stang @ February 3, 2006, 7:10 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Back to some old-school tech for a sec here (hey that rhymes):

But my target then would be 225-235 hp at the rear wheel NA with my manual 5-speed. The 235 goal is ambitious, and it may only be at the drag strip--I could have to go with high-flow cats and a straight-through exhaust to get there--but I honestly believe it is realistic.[/b][/quote]

For a guy who likes old school, check out this site. And that 225-235 NA IS achievable.

http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/

I have had an epiphany as to what I want to do with my car (and you have helped, T-stang, believe it or not!). So has MSP. Reading MSP's posts reminded me of one of the reasons I didn't get the GT in the first place (easily in my price range) and why it would be a bad idea for me to go with an SC or TC.

I will post more on the subject tomorrow, and I would appreciate some input.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Excepcion13 @ February 4, 2006, 12:12 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
For a guy who likes old school, check out this site. And that 225-235 NA IS achievable.

http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/

I have had an epiphany as to what I want to do with my car (and you have helped, T-stang, believe it or not!). So has MSP. Reading MSP's posts reminded me of one of the reasons I didn't get the GT in the first place (easily in my price range) and why it would be a bad idea for me to go with an SC or TC.

I will post more on the subject tomorrow, and I would appreciate some input.
[/b][/quote]


Please do. This we got to hear!

 

Excepcion:

Thanks for the link! Checked it out: 10s V-6, now we are talking!!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/burnout.gif[/img]

ManE:

You're the man! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/worship.gif[/img]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T-stang @ February 4, 2006, 10:47 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Excepcion:

Thanks for the link! Checked it out: 10s V-6, now we are talking!!! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/burnout.gif[/img]

ManE:

You're the man! [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/worship.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]


Yep! They have a kick butt car for sure! They were in a article in MMFF a few months ago. Unfortunately they havent done crap with the new 6. They got a ton of parts for it, but they don't have a project car so no 1/4 mile times. So, it makes me doubts thier write up on all the weak links on the new 6. We know about the pistions and rear end, but until they have a project car and actually do some testing, I am gonna wait. Just my opinion.

 

Ok, Im going to clarify a couple of my points.

First, Im basing my opinions on my experience with the Fords I have previously owned.

It is my belief that the "gains" that a CAI are producing actually come from two sources:
1. The smooth tube between the TB and MAF.
2. Since the filter is visible, people tend to keep it cleaner.

I think I can get the same gains as a $300 intake by replacing the intake tube and keeping a clean filter.

I consider a engine to be "mostly stock" unless the internals have been modified.

Dynos: As far as the fan/open hood issue, thats how everyone does it. If it does create errors, they would be uniform among all dynos on all cars.

I would really like to dyno my car, bone stock except for a GT takeoff exhaust and wheels. There just isnt a place near enough to me.

My current plan is to work on improving my stock induction system, and going with P&P heads. I would like to take a trip down to Atlanta and let supersix do the head work.

Ive got a few financial issues first, Im in the middle of a house remodel and we are taking a couple long overdue trips this year to visit family.

More later...

 

I have been working on a very scientific way that we can make direct, accurate hp comparisons at home without having to pay for expensive dyno runs.

The system is experimental, and is far from perfected, so bear with me. It involves the use of jackstands, a hampster wheel, and uniformed sized Canadian white mice of equal or "standardized" weight.

You see, we get our car's rear wheels up on the jack stands, get some one to rev the car up, in gear, to about 5,000 rpms, and then directly apply the hampster wheel to the drive wheel of the car--with the uniform or "standard" sized Canadian white mouse in place--and then measure how far he flies!!!

Of course, we would have to work out a way to compensate our measurements for temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and the prevailing winds, but I think I've really got something here.

For example, in a trial run just today, I launched a 4 oz. mouse 237 feet at 4,800 rpms with nothing but a K&N drop-in air filter and 87 octane! Beat that! Huh guys, what do you think? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yup.gif[/img]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T-stang @ February 5, 2006, 3:48 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I have been working on a very scientific way that we can make direct, accurate hp comparisons at home without having to pay for expensive dyno runs.

The system is experimental, and is far from perfected, so bear with me. It involves the use of jackstands, a hampster wheel, and uniformed sized Canadian white mice of equal or "standardized" weight.

You see, we get our car's rear wheels up on the jack stands, get some one to rev the car up, in gear, to about 5,000 rpms, and then directly apply the hampster wheel to the drive wheel of the car--with the uniform or "standard" sized Canadian white mouse in place--and then measure how far he flies!!!

Of course, we would have to work out a way to compensate our measurements for temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and the prevailing winds, but I think I've really got something here.

For example, in a trial run just today, I launched a 4 oz. mouse 237 feet at 4,800 rpms with nothing but a K&N drop-in air filter and 87 octane! Beat that! Huh guys, what do you think? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/yup.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]

Hehehe..I have the temperature/windage figured out! Shave the mouse, and then put an aerodynamic insulated suit on him! Just don't forget the helmet...shop rules require it for any launches over 200 feet [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

 

OK, I haven't been to a dyno yet, BUT... my "butt-dyno" says that the difference between the stock intake and tune and the C&L and bamachips tune is approximately...700 horsepower [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headbang.gif[/img]

So with the stocker pushing close to 185, plus 700, that means I am smoking everybody... Can't rave about Doug enough...he rules... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/worship.gif[/img]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GMC Woo @ February 5, 2006, 12:56 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
OK, I haven't been to a dyno yet, BUT... my "butt-dyno" says that the difference between the stock intake and tune and the C&L and bamachips tune is approximately...700 horsepower [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/headbang.gif[/img]

So with the stocker pushing close to 185, plus 700, that means I am smoking everybody... Can't rave about Doug enough...he rules... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/worship.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lol.gif[/img] I can second that.....he defintely does.... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/worship.gif[/img]