New X-charger numbers with a manual....
Thread Starter
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
New X-charger numbers with a manual....
Hey guys,
Well I've done my first X-charger install and it took the better part of a day I had a mishap with a connector and we were working to help make the instruction manual. Either way it went well and we were using a new style air intake too, this is the Non-emissions kit or the 49 state kit.
That was on Sunday and then Monday we went to the dyno. We first started out with a 3" pulley and made 262 rwhp and 266 rwtq. The X-charger was in true Eaton style with the Torque starting and nearly maxing out when ever I started the dynopull, it did go up a little. Most pulls were started around 2000 rpms.
Next we pulled the 3.0 pulley using a puller and installed a 2.8. The numbers jumped to 278 rwhp and 285 rwtq. At 2300 rpm's it was making 266rwtq! We then backed it up with a pull at 277 rwhp and 282 rwtq within 2-3 minutes of this first pull.
The posted dynosheet doesn't show the line on the graph very well, my scanner isn't too good I guess, but the 266 number is on a line made at 2300 rpm's.
On the test drive we further confirmed this "Torque Shelf "as the tires off idle when floored would just light up in smoke. Also the IAT temps under normal driving hoovered around 125-135 degree's which is great for daily driving.
From there it was getting later on in the day and Mike was heading back to Maryland so we just installed the boost guage and we had a water injection kit there but the instructions were marginal at best and we didn't have enough tools to do the install. I dont recommend the Cooling Mist Water Injection setup, for the price go Snow Performance.
I will post up some more dynographs when I get the files from my laptop. For now here's a scanned in sheet from the dyno.
I must thank Mike for coming down for the install and dynotune and Larry for coming over and helping with both. We had a few questionable moments but other then that the install went pretty smooth and the dynotune was even easier, it took us longer to find a pulley puller then most of the tuning.
Thanks, Doug.
Well I've done my first X-charger install and it took the better part of a day I had a mishap with a connector and we were working to help make the instruction manual. Either way it went well and we were using a new style air intake too, this is the Non-emissions kit or the 49 state kit.
That was on Sunday and then Monday we went to the dyno. We first started out with a 3" pulley and made 262 rwhp and 266 rwtq. The X-charger was in true Eaton style with the Torque starting and nearly maxing out when ever I started the dynopull, it did go up a little. Most pulls were started around 2000 rpms.
Next we pulled the 3.0 pulley using a puller and installed a 2.8. The numbers jumped to 278 rwhp and 285 rwtq. At 2300 rpm's it was making 266rwtq! We then backed it up with a pull at 277 rwhp and 282 rwtq within 2-3 minutes of this first pull.
The posted dynosheet doesn't show the line on the graph very well, my scanner isn't too good I guess, but the 266 number is on a line made at 2300 rpm's.
On the test drive we further confirmed this "Torque Shelf "as the tires off idle when floored would just light up in smoke. Also the IAT temps under normal driving hoovered around 125-135 degree's which is great for daily driving.
From there it was getting later on in the day and Mike was heading back to Maryland so we just installed the boost guage and we had a water injection kit there but the instructions were marginal at best and we didn't have enough tools to do the install. I dont recommend the Cooling Mist Water Injection setup, for the price go Snow Performance.
I will post up some more dynographs when I get the files from my laptop. For now here's a scanned in sheet from the dyno.
I must thank Mike for coming down for the install and dynotune and Larry for coming over and helping with both. We had a few questionable moments but other then that the install went pretty smooth and the dynotune was even easier, it took us longer to find a pulley puller then most of the tuning.
Thanks, Doug.
Holy ****!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at that TQ curve, this is very impressive. This setup can hit mid to low 13's with the right suspension, mabye even better.
Originally Posted by BlackLX4.0
Very impressive! Looks like it makes power all the way up to 6500rpm and probably beyond. So to anyone who says the X-Charger won't do well in the 1/4, I say you're wrong!
Originally Posted by Doug904
Hey guys,
We then backed it up with a pull at 277 rwhp and 282 rwtq within 2-3 minutes of this first pull.
We then backed it up with a pull at 277 rwhp and 282 rwtq within 2-3 minutes of this first pull.
Originally Posted by Doug904
The posted dynosheet doesn't show the line on the graph very well, my scanner isn't too good I guess, but the 266 number is on a line made at 2300 rpm's.
And the operating temps on this thing is right on. I'm impressed!
Member
Joined: May 31, 2006
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by rygenstormlocke
Wow, most impressive, back to back pulls putting down nearly the same numbers.
****, I'm a believer now. This is good for the autos, that without a stall can only launch at 2000 to 2500 depending on DR's. This means auto guys can get their 60ft times down with that 266rwtq available at launch!!!!! I see more 6's at the track suprising people, not to mention the sound this kit makes, people in the stands won't know what to think.
And the operating temps on this thing is right on. I'm impressed!
****, I'm a believer now. This is good for the autos, that without a stall can only launch at 2000 to 2500 depending on DR's. This means auto guys can get their 60ft times down with that 266rwtq available at launch!!!!! I see more 6's at the track suprising people, not to mention the sound this kit makes, people in the stands won't know what to think.
And the operating temps on this thing is right on. I'm impressed!
call me weird... but in my shopping for a supercharger i really DO want a lot of whistling/screaming... i dont want no stealthy supercharger... although i will throw on a few 4.0 badges, a la rygen
Originally Posted by blacknchrome05
what kind of sound is it? does it whistle like a twin screw?
call me weird... but in my shopping for a supercharger i really DO want a lot of whistling/screaming... i dont want no stealthy supercharger... although i will throw on a few 4.0 badges, a la rygen
call me weird... but in my shopping for a supercharger i really DO want a lot of whistling/screaming... i dont want no stealthy supercharger... although i will throw on a few 4.0 badges, a la rygen
GT Member
Joined: December 11, 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Mike's car is a five speed, it is equipped with headers and JBA true duals, other than these and a wheel and tire package, his car is stock still running an open diff and stock gears........I mean his car WAS stock....LOL
GT Member
Joined: December 11, 2004
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Doug didn't actually pull to 6500, he pulled to about 6200/6300,he had the rev limiter set to 6500, it's just that he didn't hit the stop data logging button quick enough, that is why you see the dip in the graph at the end of the pull and then it rises again. But we all felt it would have kept pulling if he kept his right foot in it.
Banned
Joined: September 19, 2005
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
WOW!! That is awsome!! Nice job Doug.. Thats the kind of power I knew the Xcharger could make..
It is unbelievable its making all this power so low in the RPM band.. Your going to definatley need slicks at the track for this setup.. That is a tremendous amount of power off the line.. Way to go... I would have loved to see a dyno pull video..
Also Doug, I noticed you spun it to 6500RPM's... Are you saying you approve of the SOHC 4.0 of spinning up this high? Also the theory in regards to the SOHC is that it is able to actually spin faster.. Basically the SOHC design was built with high RPM's in mind.. In terms of the cams being on top..
Could you please explain for us your complete thoughts on the SOHC 4.0 and its true safe rev limit abilities..
In my wildest dreams I would have never thought we would see one spun that high.. However, I have read that the motor was designed for high RPM's... Thanks!
For the record, thats 1000RPM higher than my last dyno! LOL!! Jesus Christ I am blown away by this.. WOW WOW WOW!! Nuts I tell you... Incredible!! I have fallen and I cant get up!! Help me Doug! Explain this extraordinary dyno to us!
It is unbelievable its making all this power so low in the RPM band.. Your going to definatley need slicks at the track for this setup.. That is a tremendous amount of power off the line.. Way to go... I would have loved to see a dyno pull video..
Also Doug, I noticed you spun it to 6500RPM's... Are you saying you approve of the SOHC 4.0 of spinning up this high? Also the theory in regards to the SOHC is that it is able to actually spin faster.. Basically the SOHC design was built with high RPM's in mind.. In terms of the cams being on top..
Could you please explain for us your complete thoughts on the SOHC 4.0 and its true safe rev limit abilities..
In my wildest dreams I would have never thought we would see one spun that high.. However, I have read that the motor was designed for high RPM's... Thanks!
For the record, thats 1000RPM higher than my last dyno! LOL!! Jesus Christ I am blown away by this.. WOW WOW WOW!! Nuts I tell you... Incredible!! I have fallen and I cant get up!! Help me Doug! Explain this extraordinary dyno to us!
GT Member
Joined: April 5, 2005
Posts: 175
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Fazm
Good numbers, the 6500rpm makes me uneasy, but good numbers none the less. so how much psi is the 2.8 pully, 9?
Thread Starter
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Hey guys,
The pulls went up to around 5200-6300 like before said but I have no problems taking the 4.0 SOHC upto 6500 even though it's not going to make anymore power. If you'll note on the dynosheet it made power up to around 6100-6200 rpm's but I wanted to see if it would go any higher as on most of the earlier runs I stopped at 6000.
The 4.0 SOHC has a built in stud girdle on the crankshaft and the heads are made to flow alot better then the earlier 4.0 OHV's, this is where they picked up the 47 hp over the OHV that used to be in the ranger's and explorer's, the heads. Still though they only made 5 ft/lbs more Torque.
With a set of improved camshafts and ported heads I would say the SOHC would make power well into the 6250-6700 rpm range. Of course you would also need the headers and decent exhaust to aid flow.
Also, I have some pictures of the intake used on the X-charger kit and it has a straight shot intake right down to the tip of the valve, you can actually see the intake valve looking down the port of the intake. With this improvement I would say that helps out the design flow as well.
One other thing that backs this theory is I've tuned a M112 on a SOHC and it stopped making power around 5600 rpm's but the intake design was nothing more then a flat peice of rectanglular metal so the flow rates were very different. Even though the M112 flowed more the poor intake design wasn't allowing it to make the best power.
The sound, it is very quite unit you either floor it or just get into the boost. With the open 9" air filter used on this kit you can hear it sucking more air but you can't hear the charger unit you are in it. At idle or just rolling though like a parking lot it is absolutly none exsistant.
With the 2.8 pulley it was making 5-7 psi upto around 3500 rpm's and then it would creap upto 9-10 psi. You would think it would make max boost at low rpm's but it is still a charger and builds boost as speeds increase, still it makes boost instantly at low RPM's so this is why the torque is so very high at low rpm's. 9-10 psi on a stock bottom end is absolutly fine as long as your tune is right. His tune is perfect and his timing is still so low that if he were to get his water injection on we could add another 2-3 degree's and I'm absolutly positive we could reach 300rwhp with no problem.
I've just gotten home from some 4th activities but I'll have some install photo's up soon.
Thanks, Doug.
The pulls went up to around 5200-6300 like before said but I have no problems taking the 4.0 SOHC upto 6500 even though it's not going to make anymore power. If you'll note on the dynosheet it made power up to around 6100-6200 rpm's but I wanted to see if it would go any higher as on most of the earlier runs I stopped at 6000.
The 4.0 SOHC has a built in stud girdle on the crankshaft and the heads are made to flow alot better then the earlier 4.0 OHV's, this is where they picked up the 47 hp over the OHV that used to be in the ranger's and explorer's, the heads. Still though they only made 5 ft/lbs more Torque.
With a set of improved camshafts and ported heads I would say the SOHC would make power well into the 6250-6700 rpm range. Of course you would also need the headers and decent exhaust to aid flow.
Also, I have some pictures of the intake used on the X-charger kit and it has a straight shot intake right down to the tip of the valve, you can actually see the intake valve looking down the port of the intake. With this improvement I would say that helps out the design flow as well.
One other thing that backs this theory is I've tuned a M112 on a SOHC and it stopped making power around 5600 rpm's but the intake design was nothing more then a flat peice of rectanglular metal so the flow rates were very different. Even though the M112 flowed more the poor intake design wasn't allowing it to make the best power.
The sound, it is very quite unit you either floor it or just get into the boost. With the open 9" air filter used on this kit you can hear it sucking more air but you can't hear the charger unit you are in it. At idle or just rolling though like a parking lot it is absolutly none exsistant.
With the 2.8 pulley it was making 5-7 psi upto around 3500 rpm's and then it would creap upto 9-10 psi. You would think it would make max boost at low rpm's but it is still a charger and builds boost as speeds increase, still it makes boost instantly at low RPM's so this is why the torque is so very high at low rpm's. 9-10 psi on a stock bottom end is absolutly fine as long as your tune is right. His tune is perfect and his timing is still so low that if he were to get his water injection on we could add another 2-3 degree's and I'm absolutly positive we could reach 300rwhp with no problem.
I've just gotten home from some 4th activities but I'll have some install photo's up soon.
Thanks, Doug.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: June 22, 2005
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 4
From: Boston, MA
I'm just waiting for Dave at EE to throw the switch so I can get my X-charger on the way. You're sure not making the wait any easier with posts like this Doug...
Very impressive results. Looking forward to seeing the photos
Very impressive results. Looking forward to seeing the photos
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 26, 2005
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Doug904
Hey guys,
The pulls went up to around 5200-6300 like before said but I have no problems taking the 4.0 SOHC upto 6500 even though it's not going to make anymore power. If you'll note on the dynosheet it made power up to around 6100-6200 rpm's but I wanted to see if it would go any higher as on most of the earlier runs I stopped at 6000.
The 4.0 SOHC has a built in stud girdle on the crankshaft and the heads are made to flow alot better then the earlier 4.0 OHV's, this is where they picked up the 47 hp over the OHV that used to be in the ranger's and explorer's, the heads. Still though they only made 5 ft/lbs more Torque.
With a set of improved camshafts and ported heads I would say the SOHC would make power well into the 6250-6700 rpm range. Of course you would also need the headers and decent exhaust to aid flow.
Also, I have some pictures of the intake used on the X-charger kit and it has a straight shot intake right down to the tip of the valve, you can actually see the intake valve looking down the port of the intake. With this improvement I would say that helps out the design flow as well.
One other thing that backs this theory is I've tuned a M112 on a SOHC and it stopped making power around 5600 rpm's but the intake design was nothing more then a flat peice of rectanglular metal so the flow rates were very different. Even though the M112 flowed more the poor intake design wasn't allowing it to make the best power.
The sound, it is very quite unit you either floor it or just get into the boost. With the open 9" air filter used on this kit you can hear it sucking more air but you can't hear the charger unit you are in it. At idle or just rolling though like a parking lot it is absolutly none exsistant.
With the 2.8 pulley it was making 5-7 psi upto around 3500 rpm's and then it would creap upto 9-10 psi. You would think it would make max boost at low rpm's but it is still a charger and builds boost as speeds increase, still it makes boost instantly at low RPM's so this is why the torque is so very high at low rpm's. 9-10 psi on a stock bottom end is absolutly fine as long as your tune is right. His tune is perfect and his timing is still so low that if he were to get his water injection on we could add another 2-3 degree's and I'm absolutly positive we could reach 300rwhp with no problem.
I've just gotten home from some 4th activities but I'll have some install photo's up soon.
Thanks, Doug.
The pulls went up to around 5200-6300 like before said but I have no problems taking the 4.0 SOHC upto 6500 even though it's not going to make anymore power. If you'll note on the dynosheet it made power up to around 6100-6200 rpm's but I wanted to see if it would go any higher as on most of the earlier runs I stopped at 6000.
The 4.0 SOHC has a built in stud girdle on the crankshaft and the heads are made to flow alot better then the earlier 4.0 OHV's, this is where they picked up the 47 hp over the OHV that used to be in the ranger's and explorer's, the heads. Still though they only made 5 ft/lbs more Torque.
With a set of improved camshafts and ported heads I would say the SOHC would make power well into the 6250-6700 rpm range. Of course you would also need the headers and decent exhaust to aid flow.
Also, I have some pictures of the intake used on the X-charger kit and it has a straight shot intake right down to the tip of the valve, you can actually see the intake valve looking down the port of the intake. With this improvement I would say that helps out the design flow as well.
One other thing that backs this theory is I've tuned a M112 on a SOHC and it stopped making power around 5600 rpm's but the intake design was nothing more then a flat peice of rectanglular metal so the flow rates were very different. Even though the M112 flowed more the poor intake design wasn't allowing it to make the best power.
The sound, it is very quite unit you either floor it or just get into the boost. With the open 9" air filter used on this kit you can hear it sucking more air but you can't hear the charger unit you are in it. At idle or just rolling though like a parking lot it is absolutly none exsistant.
With the 2.8 pulley it was making 5-7 psi upto around 3500 rpm's and then it would creap upto 9-10 psi. You would think it would make max boost at low rpm's but it is still a charger and builds boost as speeds increase, still it makes boost instantly at low RPM's so this is why the torque is so very high at low rpm's. 9-10 psi on a stock bottom end is absolutly fine as long as your tune is right. His tune is perfect and his timing is still so low that if he were to get his water injection on we could add another 2-3 degree's and I'm absolutly positive we could reach 300rwhp with no problem.
I've just gotten home from some 4th activities but I'll have some install photo's up soon.
Thanks, Doug.
Doug nice numbers I like the X Charger just looking for a little more power for my car so I am considering the X Charger or a centi charger ASAP. The one thing is hope it will be priced competitive or close to a Vortech ( with tuner I think) non-intercooled which can be had for around $2,995.00 online, one example Joeblow Racing.com. Also another place was listed on Mustang forums for $2,775.00.
Do you have any pricing yet so I can decide?
Regarding taking this 4.0 using new cams,V springs and heads sure making power to 6,200- to 6,700 rpm is possible but is it safe to take the motor up that high??
IMO my car won't see above 5,800.
Check out the quoted post between Dave ASE certified Ford tech and Mike Bowen from PowerHouse.
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.
Hell, 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
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.
Hell, 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
Mike Bowen
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
www.PowerHouse411.com
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
www.PowerHouse411.com
Dave
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, hell, I'm a Ford tech and I hate working on these things.
Dave
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, hell, I'm a Ford tech and I hate working on these things.
Dave
Thread Starter
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by TJ06
Doug nice numbers I like the X Charger just looking for a little more power for my car so I am considering the X Charger or a centi charger ASAP. The one thing is hope it will be priced competitive or close to a Vortech ( with tuner I think) non-intercooled which can be had for around $2,995.00 online, one example Joeblow Racing.com. Also another place was listed on Mustang forums for $2,775.00.
Do you have any pricing yet so I can decide?
Regarding taking this 4.0 using new cams,V springs and heads sure making power to 6,200- to 6,700 rpm is possible but is it safe to take the motor up that high??
IMO my car won't see above 5,800.
Check out the quoted post between Dave ASE certified Ford tech and Mike Bowen from PowerHouse.
Do you have any pricing yet so I can decide?
Regarding taking this 4.0 using new cams,V springs and heads sure making power to 6,200- to 6,700 rpm is possible but is it safe to take the motor up that high??
IMO my car won't see above 5,800.
Check out the quoted post between Dave ASE certified Ford tech and Mike Bowen from PowerHouse.
As for reliability,the 4.0 is a strong engine but needs help. I myself have said that the 4.0 wont last long at numbers above 300 rwhp in other posts. Now I'm not saying that you can't goto the track and on the dyno and make those numbers and keep it together but just that you'll shorten the life of the engine considerably over 300. Justin at VMP is running his 4.0 Vortech S/C V6 with aftercooler at 350+ rwhp and I can't count the number of 04-down 3.8's I know of with 325rwhp plus I've personally tuned.
I am a Ford Master Tech along with a Recertified ASE Master in both Automotive/Light Truck as well as Heavy Truck. Recertified means that I've been a master longer then 5 years and I've had to take the tests again to keep it.
Either way though, the biggest part of the equation is the tune, if it's not 100% then you're not gonna last long no matter what Hp or RPM's you are turning.
The one thing that Ford has listed incorrectly and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this is the Forged Rods that they state the 4.0 has, it has no such deal. These rods are the same as the ones that have been in both the Ranger's, Aerostar, and Explorer's for years now. They were lightned in 97' when the SOHC came out but are still the same rods. Even with that said though the rods aren't going to blow apart at 300hp, the rod bolts are the weak parts and there isn't any aftermarket bolts available because of their metric size. There is away around this though......
I know most question the piston strength and being that they are the hyperpathetic I've seen this material hold well upto 400 rwhp on many 4.6 2v's. There again, the problem with the pistons will come from a bad a/f ratio or too much timing causing engine detonation, this all goes back to the tune.
I've been modding the 4.0's longer then most companies have known it was out. I started with a 93' 4.0 OHV Splash new off the showroom floor in 93' and had 3 different superchargers on the OHV before I swapped in a SOHC and then installed a Paxton SN93 and a Lightning M112 on it, all custom fabbed. I've actually used OHV pistons in these SOHC's to lower the compression ratio because they are dished and the SOHC's are flat tops. Enough about engine building though...
I'm not here to degrade other kits nor will I go over any short comings of them. Each kit has it's highs and lows, all I can say is that with the X-charger kit you will get a durable kit that makes great power and is made to last the life of the engine. The MP90 Unit is made by Eaton, the world's largest manufactorer of OEM superchargers. It has the new internal bypass valve that equalizes case pressure, therefore it cost's less than 1/3 of a hp at 60 mph to run.
Dave has built this kit to provide good power and durability. Making nearly 260rwhp from the auto's and 280 rwhp from the manual is what we're happy with and are going to market this with. This is well into the 300hp range at the flywheel. From there as with most any other kit what you want to do for added power is upto you, just be safe with it as you've already explained.
Please be sure to check over the other post for installation pictures.
thanks, Doug.
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 26, 2005
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
The pricing isn't from me but be sure to check out my new post here soon and you'll see the quality and the parts that make this kit so much more then the others.
I am a Ford Master Tech along with a Recertified ASE Master in both Automotive/Light Truck as well as Heavy Truck. Recertified means that I've been a master longer then 5 years and I've had to take the tests again to keep it.
The one thing that Ford has listed incorrectly and I know I'm gonna catch hell for this is the Forged Rods that they state the 4.0 has, it has no such deal. These rods are the same as the ones that have been in both the Ranger's, Aerostar, and Explorer's for years now. They were lightned in 97' when the SOHC came out but are still the same rods. Even with that said though the rods aren't going to blow apart at 300hp, the rod bolts are the weak parts and there isn't any aftermarket bolts available because of their metric size. There is away around this though......
I know most question the piston strength and being that they are the hyperpathetic I've seen this material hold well upto 400 rwhp on many 4.6 2v's. There again, the problem with the pistons will come from a bad a/f ratio or too much timing causing engine detonation, this all goes back to the tune.
I'm not here to degrade other kits nor will I go over any short comings of them. Each kit has it's highs and lows, all I can say is that with the X-charger kit you will get a durable kit that makes great power and is made to last the life of the engine. The MP90 Unit is made by Eaton, the world's largest manufactorer of OEM superchargers. It has the new internal bypass valve that equalizes case pressure, therefore it cost's less than 1/3 of a hp at 60 mph to run.
Doug I know an intercooler is not nessacary at 9psi due to the low temps but would like info on an intercooler set up, one person said there is not enough room while one said it might be possible to custom fab one. I know a heat exchanger will would also need to be installed.
But my question is it possible to custom fab an intercooler under the X Charger?
When will the X Charger be ready to ship and what will each kit include?
For some reason the 3rd quote above didn't post in response to PoweHouse so I had to re edit it in.
The nice thing about the X is it does make nice HP and TQ though out lower rpm's
GT Member
Joined: November 29, 2005
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Doug, Awesome news! The wait has been worth it. I've been reading posts and comparing F/I units with concern over shorten engine life. Looks like this issue has been carefully considered with the X-charger. One question I have in regards to the 4.0s internal strenght is how is Shelby's CS6 using the Paxton to boost the 4.0 up to 350 hwp? Did they do something to the internals, or are they just livin' on the edge?
Thread Starter
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: July 28, 2004
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Hey guy,
The Paxton kit is quoting flywheel numbers and they are Hp, not Torque. Giving the manual transmission 15% of driveline loss at 278 rwhp x 15% = 320 flywheel hp and 328 Flywheel torque. They are using an intercooler as well.
I was reviewing a few things on the dynoruns and I found something else that was probably even making us loose a few Hp, it was 100.26 degree's inside the dyno!! I've made a comparison between the best run with the 3.0 inch pulley and the run with the 2.8 pulley. I've attached them both with the only difference being that one displays max values and the other displays conditions the runs were made in. Both are the same two runs as shown in the names run 003-3.0 pulley, run 007- 2.8 pulley.
Man what we could have made at around 65 degree's outside
The Paxton kit is quoting flywheel numbers and they are Hp, not Torque. Giving the manual transmission 15% of driveline loss at 278 rwhp x 15% = 320 flywheel hp and 328 Flywheel torque. They are using an intercooler as well.
I was reviewing a few things on the dynoruns and I found something else that was probably even making us loose a few Hp, it was 100.26 degree's inside the dyno!! I've made a comparison between the best run with the 3.0 inch pulley and the run with the 2.8 pulley. I've attached them both with the only difference being that one displays max values and the other displays conditions the runs were made in. Both are the same two runs as shown in the names run 003-3.0 pulley, run 007- 2.8 pulley.
Man what we could have made at around 65 degree's outside