New Dyno numbers with the C&L and BamaChips X-2...
11/30/05, 08:04 PM
#41
GT Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there it is, we should take this digruntled mechanics word as gospel. I quess old Carroll Shelby has gone senile on us, what is this old guy thinking? SC on a 4.0 and then putting a warranty on it to boot. He is off his nut for sure. When I was in the Air Force we complained about how bad the F4 phantoms were built because the plane was a nightmare to maintain. The F4 was one of the toughest fighters ever made, just ask the pilots that flew them. Same thing applies here, this guy has busted so many knuckles on the 4.0 he hates them. Obviously the engine is a tad stouter than this individual would have us believe. We have seen SCs on them, nitrous on them, turbos on them, run after run down the 1320 and so far the only failure I have heard of was a 7.5 going south. So just what kind of "delicate flower" is this engine....poison ivey or cactus? 
11/30/05, 08:11 PM
#43
GT Member
Join Date: July 18, 2005
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 05V6@November 30, 2005, 10:07 PM
Well there it is, we should take this digruntled mechanics word as gospel. I quess old Carroll Shelby has gone senile on us, what is this old guy thinking? SC on a 4.0 and then putting a warranty on it to boot. He is off his nut for sure. When I was in the Air Force we complained about how bad the F4 phantoms were built because the plane was a nightmare to maintain. The F4 was one of the toughest fighters ever made, just ask the pilots that flew them. Same thing applies here, this guy has busted so many knuckles on the 4.0 he hates them. Obviously the engine is a tad stouter than this individual would have us believe. We have seen SCs on them, nitrous on them, turbos on them, run after run down the 1320 and so far the only failure I have heard of was a 7.5 going south. So just what kind of "delicate flower" is this engine....poison ivey or cactus?
Well there it is, we should take this digruntled mechanics word as gospel. I quess old Carroll Shelby has gone senile on us, what is this old guy thinking? SC on a 4.0 and then putting a warranty on it to boot. He is off his nut for sure. When I was in the Air Force we complained about how bad the F4 phantoms were built because the plane was a nightmare to maintain. The F4 was one of the toughest fighters ever made, just ask the pilots that flew them. Same thing applies here, this guy has busted so many knuckles on the 4.0 he hates them. Obviously the engine is a tad stouter than this individual would have us believe. We have seen SCs on them, nitrous on them, turbos on them, run after run down the 1320 and so far the only failure I have heard of was a 7.5 going south. So just what kind of "delicate flower" is this engine....poison ivey or cactus?
scrming and I both said that shelby putting a SC on the 4.0 and what this guy was saying didn't add up. I think he (the person who's post I quoted) was generalizing and I understand we all tend to do that. That is why I really appreciate what scrming and all of you power adder nuts do to your cars to help wimps like me make informed decisions. :worship:
11/30/05, 08:25 PM
#44
Originally posted by 05V6@November 30, 2005, 11:07 PM
Well there it is, we should take this digruntled mechanics word as gospel. I quess old Carroll Shelby has gone senile on us, what is this old guy thinking? SC on a 4.0 and then putting a warranty on it to boot. He is off his nut for sure. When I was in the Air Force we complained about how bad the F4 phantoms were built because the plane was a nightmare to maintain. The F4 was one of the toughest fighters ever made, just ask the pilots that flew them. Same thing applies here, this guy has busted so many knuckles on the 4.0 he hates them. Obviously the engine is a tad stouter than this individual would have us believe. We have seen SCs on them, nitrous on them, turbos on them, run after run down the 1320 and so far the only failure I have heard of was a 7.5 going south. So just what kind of "delicate flower" is this engine....poison ivey or cactus?
Well there it is, we should take this digruntled mechanics word as gospel. I quess old Carroll Shelby has gone senile on us, what is this old guy thinking? SC on a 4.0 and then putting a warranty on it to boot. He is off his nut for sure. When I was in the Air Force we complained about how bad the F4 phantoms were built because the plane was a nightmare to maintain. The F4 was one of the toughest fighters ever made, just ask the pilots that flew them. Same thing applies here, this guy has busted so many knuckles on the 4.0 he hates them. Obviously the engine is a tad stouter than this individual would have us believe. We have seen SCs on them, nitrous on them, turbos on them, run after run down the 1320 and so far the only failure I have heard of was a 7.5 going south. So just what kind of "delicate flower" is this engine....poison ivey or cactus?
11/30/05, 08:38 PM
#45
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jimp@November 30, 2005, 7:28 PM
The dude mentioned a couple of case of older 4.0s that had problems, and he also said that they were poorly maintained. I still say that he was talking out of his pooper.
The dude mentioned a couple of case of older 4.0s that had problems, and he also said that they were poorly maintained. I still say that he was talking out of his pooper.
Like I have said before, we have all had our cars for less than a year.. Lets talk about this again around the same time next year and see what pops up.. Lets see once all the S/C's and Turbo kits make their way into the cars, how reliable it will be...
Until I hear of someone who has blown a head gasket, or broke some rods, I'm not worried..
The clencher is Mike @ Powerhouse running the engine up to 12psi... This is with the stock pistons and rods, with the standard stock head studs... This was 400RWHP and 441RWTQ.. I never heard him say he blew a head gasket or anything.. So I am quite comfortable with the engines ability.. I say we continue full steam ahead until one of our buddies here hurts something besides a rear-end.. LOL!! Heck, Mike even did that on the stock clutch, and driveline!
So when you here people doubting it, make them show you a 2005 Mustang V6 who has hurt their engine because of too much power.. Based on Mike's 400RWHP 1/4 mile run, I am thinking its going to be somewhere north of 450RWHP before something breaks on stock internals.. Heck, if 400RWHP is not enough for you, then you have a death wish.. You dont need more than that for a street car.. No matter if its a V6,V8 or V10..
11/30/05, 08:44 PM
#46
GT Member
Join Date: July 18, 2005
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Mike @ powerhouse responded to that same thread and said..
here is the thread for those interested..it's reather long and you have to go to page 4 to see the comments to which I am referring...
sc thread
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.
sc thread
11/30/05, 08:50 PM
#47
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
If I remember correctly, he did it once.
And, no, I haven't heard anyone break theirs either.
But, I haven't heard anyone do it streetable long-term either.
So, in other words, I'll be a believer when its proven. Not a second beforehand.
And, this isn't to say the 4.0 isn't a good engine.
And, no, I haven't heard anyone break theirs either.
But, I haven't heard anyone do it streetable long-term either.
So, in other words, I'll be a believer when its proven. Not a second beforehand.
And, this isn't to say the 4.0 isn't a good engine.
11/30/05, 08:52 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DanteMO@November 30, 2005, 7:47 PM
Actually, Mike @ powerhouse responded to that same thread and said..
here is the thread for those interested..it's reather long and you have to go to page 4 to see the comments to which I am referring...
sc thread
Actually, Mike @ powerhouse responded to that same thread and said..
here is the thread for those interested..it's reather long and you have to go to page 4 to see the comments to which I am referring...
sc thread
Yes, he did like the fact that the turbo was able to get the good numbers produced at around 5300RPM... This goes towards my original debate about going with the 3.73's, as opposed to the 4.10's.. Scrming did get upset about this, but we worked it out...
Based on Mikes response in regards to the RPM range, and the risk of spinning the motor up to high, I still think the 3.73's, or 3.45's are the best bet.. But this does make the situation alittle more interesting when comparing a Turbo to a S/C.. We still do not have a reference point for a S/C 2005 4.0... It would be nice to see where the bulk of the power is made.. What I mean is, are the S/C's going to top out on power north of 5500RPM? If so, things could get dicey.. Using Mikes concept with a peak at around 5300 to 5500 is what needs to be key here..
Unlike the 4.6L's, we need to be finished making power between 5300 to 5500rpm to be on the safe side.. I understand that the dyno may read increased power beyond 5500rpm, but this is truley at the risk of the owner.. I like how Mike engineered his turbo to be done at 5300rpm, this gives longevity.. However, in Mikes car he is running the 8.8 rear-end with 3.55's... So if this does concern you somewhat, then instead of going with 3.73's, you could go for a 3.45 or keep the 3.31 gears....
Bottom line though really, is its not even been 1 year yet.. There still alot to be discovered, and nothing is set in stone..
11/30/05, 08:58 PM
#49
Originally posted by DanteMO@November 30, 2005, 11:47 PM
Actually, Mike @ powerhouse responded to that same thread and said..
here is the thread for those interested..it's reather long and you have to go to page 4 to see the comments to which I am referring...
sc thread
Actually, Mike @ powerhouse responded to that same thread and said..
here is the thread for those interested..it's reather long and you have to go to page 4 to see the comments to which I am referring...
sc thread
11/30/05, 09:37 PM
#50
Originally posted by Doug904@November 30, 2005, 9:57 PM
I've been building and working on the 4.0's since 93'. Yes, when the 97's SOHC's come out they were a bit on the harsh side and with the timing chain tensiorers and such had their share of issues but so did the 3.8. The 3.8 in 96-98 would blow the head gaskets regularly.
Each engine has it's downfalls and its been around alot longer then most, being that it's based off the original 2.6 from the early 70's.
Anyway, without going crazy into it most people has their thoughts about the V6 and how bad it is but the best thing to do is run it and teach them otherwise.
I have a guy with an 04' Ranger SOHC with 293 rwhp and 327 rwtq and it's his Daily Driver.
Thanks, Doug.
I've been building and working on the 4.0's since 93'. Yes, when the 97's SOHC's come out they were a bit on the harsh side and with the timing chain tensiorers and such had their share of issues but so did the 3.8. The 3.8 in 96-98 would blow the head gaskets regularly.
Each engine has it's downfalls and its been around alot longer then most, being that it's based off the original 2.6 from the early 70's.
Anyway, without going crazy into it most people has their thoughts about the V6 and how bad it is but the best thing to do is run it and teach them otherwise.
I have a guy with an 04' Ranger SOHC with 293 rwhp and 327 rwtq and it's his Daily Driver.
Thanks, Doug.
Thanks for this, nice to get an expert opinion on that post. It actually got into Mikes thread when he got into the 11's around a month ago. Created quite a stir but it all got sorted out.
11/30/05, 09:42 PM
#51
Originally posted by MSP@November 30, 2005, 10:55 PM
Yes, he did like the fact that the turbo was able to get the good numbers produced at around 5300RPM... This goes towards my original debate about going with the 3.73's, as opposed to the 4.10's.. Scrming did get upset about this, but we worked it out...
Based on Mikes response in regards to the RPM range, and the risk of spinning the motor up to high, I still think the 3.73's, or 3.45's are the best bet.. But this does make the situation alittle more interesting when comparing a Turbo to a S/C.. We still do not have a reference point for a S/C 2005 4.0... It would be nice to see where the bulk of the power is made.. What I mean is, are the S/C's going to top out on power north of 5500RPM? If so, things could get dicey.. Using Mikes concept with a peak at around 5300 to 5500 is what needs to be key here..
Unlike the 4.6L's, we need to be finished making power between 5300 to 5500rpm to be on the safe side.. I understand that the dyno may read increased power beyond 5500rpm, but this is truley at the risk of the owner.. I like how Mike engineered his turbo to be done at 5300rpm, this gives longevity.. However, in Mikes car he is running the 8.8 rear-end with 3.55's... So if this does concern you somewhat, then instead of going with 3.73's, you could go for a 3.45 or keep the 3.31 gears....
Bottom line though really, is its not even been 1 year yet.. There still alot to be discovered, and nothing is set in stone..
Yes, he did like the fact that the turbo was able to get the good numbers produced at around 5300RPM... This goes towards my original debate about going with the 3.73's, as opposed to the 4.10's.. Scrming did get upset about this, but we worked it out...
Based on Mikes response in regards to the RPM range, and the risk of spinning the motor up to high, I still think the 3.73's, or 3.45's are the best bet.. But this does make the situation alittle more interesting when comparing a Turbo to a S/C.. We still do not have a reference point for a S/C 2005 4.0... It would be nice to see where the bulk of the power is made.. What I mean is, are the S/C's going to top out on power north of 5500RPM? If so, things could get dicey.. Using Mikes concept with a peak at around 5300 to 5500 is what needs to be key here..
Unlike the 4.6L's, we need to be finished making power between 5300 to 5500rpm to be on the safe side.. I understand that the dyno may read increased power beyond 5500rpm, but this is truley at the risk of the owner.. I like how Mike engineered his turbo to be done at 5300rpm, this gives longevity.. However, in Mikes car he is running the 8.8 rear-end with 3.55's... So if this does concern you somewhat, then instead of going with 3.73's, you could go for a 3.45 or keep the 3.31 gears....
Bottom line though really, is its not even been 1 year yet.. There still alot to be discovered, and nothing is set in stone..
Didn't Mike also mention dropping down to a gear ratio under 3.31 when he tries to get that V6 into the 10's?
12/15/05, 08:42 AM
#52
Doug,
Quick question, are these numbers SAE? They look more like STD, still very good numbers just wanted to know 100%.
Thanks.
Quick question, are these numbers SAE? They look more like STD, still very good numbers just wanted to know 100%.
Thanks.
12/15/05, 08:47 AM
#53
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rygenstormlocke@December 15, 2005, 10:45 AM
Doug,
Quick question, are these numbers SAE? They look more like STD, still very good numbers just wanted to know 100%.
Thanks.
Doug,
Quick question, are these numbers SAE? They look more like STD, still very good numbers just wanted to know 100%.
Thanks.
Zodiac's dyno sheet does say SAE..
12/15/05, 09:38 AM
#54
Originally posted by scrming@December 15, 2005, 10:50 AM
Zodiac's dyno sheet does say SAE..
Zodiac's dyno sheet does say SAE..
Wow, awesome, absolutely awesome!!! I just went back to the dyno charts, my bad. I just wasn't sure, but these numbers are so darn awesome.
12/15/05, 11:23 AM
#55
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rygenstormlocke@December 15, 2005, 11:41 AM
Wow, awesome, absolutely awesome!!! I just went back to the dyno charts, my bad. I just wasn't sure, but these numbers are so darn awesome.
Wow, awesome, absolutely awesome!!! I just went back to the dyno charts, my bad. I just wasn't sure, but these numbers are so darn awesome.
12/15/05, 11:46 AM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man apparently Im the guy to beat now.. Im not sure if I like this or not! Ive gotta finish paying for this last round of mods, get my gears/tlok installed, then start saving for whatever's next.. not to mention buying the girlfriend that little christmas gift she's had her eye on for a few months now.. why does it have to come in a little square box? -_-
You guys are gonna make me give up smoking to finance these mods! Must stay ahead of the game..! hehe
You guys are gonna make me give up smoking to finance these mods! Must stay ahead of the game..! hehe
12/15/05, 11:58 AM
#57
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Zodiac@December 15, 2005, 1:49 PM
Man apparently Im the guy to beat now.. Im not sure if I like this or not! Ive gotta finish paying for this last round of mods, get my gears/tlok installed, then start saving for whatever's next.. not to mention buying the girlfriend that little christmas gift she's had her eye on for a few months now.. why does it have to come in a little square box? -_-
You guys are gonna make me give up smoking to finance these mods! Must stay ahead of the game..! hehe
Man apparently Im the guy to beat now.. Im not sure if I like this or not! Ive gotta finish paying for this last round of mods, get my gears/tlok installed, then start saving for whatever's next.. not to mention buying the girlfriend that little christmas gift she's had her eye on for a few months now.. why does it have to come in a little square box? -_-
You guys are gonna make me give up smoking to finance these mods! Must stay ahead of the game..! hehe
12/15/05, 12:05 PM
#58
Originally posted by scrming@December 15, 2005, 2:01 PM
once upon a time... in a different life... I acutally used to race bicycles... the rule was, always ride with some one a little bit better... that way they are always pushing you to catch up... and your pushing them to stay ahead... so welcome to the top Zodiac! LOL! Now go paint a big target sign on your shirt! LOL!!!
once upon a time... in a different life... I acutally used to race bicycles... the rule was, always ride with some one a little bit better... that way they are always pushing you to catch up... and your pushing them to stay ahead... so welcome to the top Zodiac! LOL! Now go paint a big target sign on your shirt! LOL!!!
The arms race is in full effect!!!!! I mean, look at you Scrming, you switched out your CAI for what was it, 3HP gain....now that is devotion!!!
12/15/05, 12:10 PM
#59
Cobra Member
Join Date: July 28, 2005
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rygenstormlocke@December 15, 2005, 2:08 PM
The arms race is in full effect!!!!! I mean, look at you Scrming, you switched out your CAI for what was it, 3HP gain....now that is devotion!!!
The arms race is in full effect!!!!! I mean, look at you Scrming, you switched out your CAI for what was it, 3HP gain....now that is devotion!!!
and don't forget it looks better! Remember I must have hit 2 dozen car shows last summer!
12/15/05, 12:25 PM
#60
Originally posted by scrming@December 15, 2005, 2:13 PM
and don't forget it looks better! Remember I must have hit 2 dozen car shows last summer!
and don't forget it looks better! Remember I must have hit 2 dozen car shows last summer!
You should paint the MAF tube yellow, to match your engine cover! Put a bunch of yellow and crome under the hood!
LOL. And yellow neon running pony under the hood to match the neon in your car.