Vortech 2005-2006 Mustang V6 H.O. Supercharging System
2/12/06, 03:18 AM
#61
V6 Member
Join Date: March 1, 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@MSP:
My friend was talking about the V-6 (Super Six Motorsports also refers to weak pistons as a shortcoming on the V-6). My friend and I, and I guess Super Six Motorsports, are all of the opinion that the stock engine won't take over 350 HP long term. But hey, I respect your decision and wish you luck at the track. I am soon to be 42 by the way, which may be why I seem to prefer old-school engine building techniques. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif[/img]
@TJ:
How has anyone run the new Vortex H.O. supercharger mentioned in the OP "for years" when it has only just become available for the 4.0 V-6? Even the slightly older Vortex for the '05-'06 4.0 V-6 Mustang is less than a year old. The Procharger for the 4.0 V-6 is less than a year-old as well. Heck, the '05 Mustang is just over a year-old! Was your reference to someone running a supercharger on the V-6 when it was a truck engine? The older Mustang V-6s were a completely different engine! Even if your statement was correct, that would be three people we've heard of in this forum running the SC on a 4.0 V-6, and two of them for just a few months: hardly a proponderance of evidence wouldn't you agree? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/box2.gif[/img]
Also, I never claimed that my insights were new, as a matter of fact most of my experience comes from the old-school. If you readily aknowledge that running 12 lbs. of boost is a mistake why not just say so: you actually seem to agree with me on that point! And running 4-6 lbs. of boost is not the same thing as running 9-12: some of these men are talking about pushing 350+ HP. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/uzi.gif[/img]
My earlier post mentioned blueprinting and balancing an engine that had been just slightly bored and stroked to make it perfectly square. Combined with a lightened flywheel and better heads I said the engine might make 7,000 to 8,000 rpms (manual trans of course). I have seen many cars with chain driven cams reach those numbers when done right (nearly all the old muscle cars had chain driven cams). With a manual tranny the stock 4.0 V-6 already shows a redline of 5,750 rpms on the tach--and I have taken it at least that far. But I will grant you that could be one of the challenges of what I am proposing (but even 6,500 rpms would be a welcome improvement). [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/burnout.gif[/img]
By the way, low rpms caused by a weak timing chain and cam shaft combination are actually another argument against supercharging without first shoring up the bottom end. And hey, aren't you a GT owner? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/chairshot.gif[/img]
My friend was talking about the V-6 (Super Six Motorsports also refers to weak pistons as a shortcoming on the V-6). My friend and I, and I guess Super Six Motorsports, are all of the opinion that the stock engine won't take over 350 HP long term. But hey, I respect your decision and wish you luck at the track. I am soon to be 42 by the way, which may be why I seem to prefer old-school engine building techniques. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif[/img]
@TJ:
How has anyone run the new Vortex H.O. supercharger mentioned in the OP "for years" when it has only just become available for the 4.0 V-6? Even the slightly older Vortex for the '05-'06 4.0 V-6 Mustang is less than a year old. The Procharger for the 4.0 V-6 is less than a year-old as well. Heck, the '05 Mustang is just over a year-old! Was your reference to someone running a supercharger on the V-6 when it was a truck engine? The older Mustang V-6s were a completely different engine! Even if your statement was correct, that would be three people we've heard of in this forum running the SC on a 4.0 V-6, and two of them for just a few months: hardly a proponderance of evidence wouldn't you agree? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/box2.gif[/img]
Also, I never claimed that my insights were new, as a matter of fact most of my experience comes from the old-school. If you readily aknowledge that running 12 lbs. of boost is a mistake why not just say so: you actually seem to agree with me on that point! And running 4-6 lbs. of boost is not the same thing as running 9-12: some of these men are talking about pushing 350+ HP. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/uzi.gif[/img]
My earlier post mentioned blueprinting and balancing an engine that had been just slightly bored and stroked to make it perfectly square. Combined with a lightened flywheel and better heads I said the engine might make 7,000 to 8,000 rpms (manual trans of course). I have seen many cars with chain driven cams reach those numbers when done right (nearly all the old muscle cars had chain driven cams). With a manual tranny the stock 4.0 V-6 already shows a redline of 5,750 rpms on the tach--and I have taken it at least that far. But I will grant you that could be one of the challenges of what I am proposing (but even 6,500 rpms would be a welcome improvement). [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/burnout.gif[/img]
By the way, low rpms caused by a weak timing chain and cam shaft combination are actually another argument against supercharging without first shoring up the bottom end. And hey, aren't you a GT owner? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/chairshot.gif[/img]
2/12/06, 09:02 AM
#62
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> name='T-stang' post='640491' date='February 12, 2006, 4:21 AM']
@TJ:
How has anyone run the new Vortex H.O. supercharger mentioned in the OP "for years" when it has only just become available for the 4.0 V-6? Even the slightly older Vortex for the '05-'06 4.0 V-6 Mustang is less than a year old. The Procharger for the 4.0 V-6 is less than a year-old as well. Heck, the '05 Mustang is just over a year-old! Was your reference to someone running a supercharger on the V-6 when it was a truck engine? The older Mustang V-6s were a completely different engine! Even if your statement was correct, that would be three people we've heard of in this forum running the SC on a 4.0 V-6, and two of them for just a few months: hardly a proponderance of evidence wouldn't you agree?
Also, I never claimed that my insights were new, as a matter of fact most of my experience comes from the old-school. If you readily aknowledge that running 12 lbs. of boost is a mistake why not just say so: you actually seem to agree with me on that point! And running 4-6 lbs. of boost is not the same thing as running 9-12: some of these men are talking about pushing 350+ HP.
My earlier post mentioned blueprinting and balancing an engine that had been just slightly bored and stroked to make it perfectly square. Combined with a lightened flywheel and better heads I said the engine might make 7,000 to 8,000 rpms (manual trans of course). I have seen many cars with chain driven cams reach those numbers when done right (nearly all the old muscle cars had chain driven cams). With a manual tranny the stock 4.0 V-6 already shows a redline of 5,750 rpms on the tach--and I have taken it at least that far. But I will grant you that could be one of the challenges of what I am proposing (but even 6,500 rpms would be a welcome improvement).
By the way, low rpms caused by a weak timing chain and cam shaft combination are actually another argument against supercharging without first shoring up the bottom end. And hey, aren't you a GT owner? [/b][/quote]
T-stang
Sorry if I was a little harsh on my last post but I just took it as you were slamming the 4.0 unjustifiably and people are just lazy or not to bright for wanting to add a S/C, T/C or nitrous. Also when I read your “I just got off the phone with my friend†a second time it sure read to me like there was no friend but that just you. Maybe I just over reacted at the moment.
First of all Explorer Express has been selling a Eaton supercharger running @6psi for years for the 4,0 in the Ford Explorer and Ford Ranger. These are the same engine’s that is in the Mustang. Ford did not build a new 4.0 but used the truck engine for the Mustang. This engine goes back a lot of years a least to 91 and has had improvement’s though the years.
So in response to question it has not been just months of evidence that is incorrect.
This engine is not built like the old chain driven cam engines were it is just gears and a chain to drive the camshaft, this is a DOHC engine this engine has a 2 chains that turns a 2 metal round shaft that runs up to the camshaft to turn it. This is part of the reason this engine cannot take 8k rpm, I could go on more on this but I hope you get the pictured and this has been already been gone over by other tech people (one a Ford tech people) here a while ago.
Once again my apologies to you and the board members for over reacting or being harsh to T-Stang in my previous post.
TJ
@TJ:
How has anyone run the new Vortex H.O. supercharger mentioned in the OP "for years" when it has only just become available for the 4.0 V-6? Even the slightly older Vortex for the '05-'06 4.0 V-6 Mustang is less than a year old. The Procharger for the 4.0 V-6 is less than a year-old as well. Heck, the '05 Mustang is just over a year-old! Was your reference to someone running a supercharger on the V-6 when it was a truck engine? The older Mustang V-6s were a completely different engine! Even if your statement was correct, that would be three people we've heard of in this forum running the SC on a 4.0 V-6, and two of them for just a few months: hardly a proponderance of evidence wouldn't you agree?
Also, I never claimed that my insights were new, as a matter of fact most of my experience comes from the old-school. If you readily aknowledge that running 12 lbs. of boost is a mistake why not just say so: you actually seem to agree with me on that point! And running 4-6 lbs. of boost is not the same thing as running 9-12: some of these men are talking about pushing 350+ HP.
My earlier post mentioned blueprinting and balancing an engine that had been just slightly bored and stroked to make it perfectly square. Combined with a lightened flywheel and better heads I said the engine might make 7,000 to 8,000 rpms (manual trans of course). I have seen many cars with chain driven cams reach those numbers when done right (nearly all the old muscle cars had chain driven cams). With a manual tranny the stock 4.0 V-6 already shows a redline of 5,750 rpms on the tach--and I have taken it at least that far. But I will grant you that could be one of the challenges of what I am proposing (but even 6,500 rpms would be a welcome improvement).
By the way, low rpms caused by a weak timing chain and cam shaft combination are actually another argument against supercharging without first shoring up the bottom end. And hey, aren't you a GT owner? [/b][/quote]
T-stang
Sorry if I was a little harsh on my last post but I just took it as you were slamming the 4.0 unjustifiably and people are just lazy or not to bright for wanting to add a S/C, T/C or nitrous. Also when I read your “I just got off the phone with my friend†a second time it sure read to me like there was no friend but that just you. Maybe I just over reacted at the moment.
First of all Explorer Express has been selling a Eaton supercharger running @6psi for years for the 4,0 in the Ford Explorer and Ford Ranger. These are the same engine’s that is in the Mustang. Ford did not build a new 4.0 but used the truck engine for the Mustang. This engine goes back a lot of years a least to 91 and has had improvement’s though the years.
So in response to question it has not been just months of evidence that is incorrect.
This engine is not built like the old chain driven cam engines were it is just gears and a chain to drive the camshaft, this is a DOHC engine this engine has a 2 chains that turns a 2 metal round shaft that runs up to the camshaft to turn it. This is part of the reason this engine cannot take 8k rpm, I could go on more on this but I hope you get the pictured and this has been already been gone over by other tech people (one a Ford tech people) here a while ago.
Once again my apologies to you and the board members for over reacting or being harsh to T-Stang in my previous post.
TJ
2/12/06, 11:33 AM
#63
V6 Member
Join Date: March 1, 2005
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TJ:
Your kinder words have done much to appease me, and I thank you for that. My friends name is Joe and we graduated from high school together--he has owned and worked on Mustangs for almost 20 years now. He is also good friends with a few men that own and run a Mustang High Performance shop out here in So.Cal, so he has their insight as well. They are the ones that warned me about the pistons, not Super Six (although they seem to agree on that point which makes a stronger case in my mind).
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). Even if I am wrong about that, the devil is often in the details, and I would hesitate to cross anectodotal evidence like that, especially when it concerns a different brand of supercharger.
P.S.: it looks like you have edited the post I was responding to here (except for my quote), does that mean you have taken back your apology as well?
Your kinder words have done much to appease me, and I thank you for that. My friends name is Joe and we graduated from high school together--he has owned and worked on Mustangs for almost 20 years now. He is also good friends with a few men that own and run a Mustang High Performance shop out here in So.Cal, so he has their insight as well. They are the ones that warned me about the pistons, not Super Six (although they seem to agree on that point which makes a stronger case in my mind).
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). Even if I am wrong about that, the devil is often in the details, and I would hesitate to cross anectodotal evidence like that, especially when it concerns a different brand of supercharger.
P.S.: it looks like you have edited the post I was responding to here (except for my quote), does that mean you have taken back your apology as well?
2/12/06, 11:54 AM
#64
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(T-stang @ February 12, 2006, 12:36 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
@TJ:
Your kinder words have done much to appease me, and I thank you for that. My friends name is Joe and we graduated from high school together--he has owned and worked on Mustangs for almost 20 years now. He is also good friends with a few men that own and run a Mustang High Performance shop out here in So.Cal, so he has their insight as well. They are the ones that warned me about the pistons, not Super Six (although they seem to agree on that point which makes a stronger case in my mind).
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). Even if I am wrong about that, the devil is often in the details, and I would hesitate to cross anectodotal evidence like that, especially when it concerns a different brand of supercharger.
P.S.: it looks like you have edited the post I was responding to here (except for my quote), does that mean you have taken back your apology as well?
[/b][/quote]
I have no ideal how or what happened but I just posted it again above so it i
@TJ:
Your kinder words have done much to appease me, and I thank you for that. My friends name is Joe and we graduated from high school together--he has owned and worked on Mustangs for almost 20 years now. He is also good friends with a few men that own and run a Mustang High Performance shop out here in So.Cal, so he has their insight as well. They are the ones that warned me about the pistons, not Super Six (although they seem to agree on that point which makes a stronger case in my mind).
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). Even if I am wrong about that, the devil is often in the details, and I would hesitate to cross anectodotal evidence like that, especially when it concerns a different brand of supercharger.
P.S.: it looks like you have edited the post I was responding to here (except for my quote), does that mean you have taken back your apology as well?
[/b][/quote]
I have no ideal how or what happened but I just posted it again above so it i
2/12/06, 12:15 PM
#65
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> T-Stang
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). [/b][/quote]
T-sting he is not a friend of mine but a company Explorer Express that been selling superchargers for the 4.0 for years that run at 6psi and running WITOUT an intercooler.
The cylinder compression ratio has not changed and has been 9.7.1 all the way back to 2000 or 2001, also the heads were not redesigned just for the Mustang.
So your friend has not been running one of the new Vortech or Procharger units designed for the Mustang, nor has he been running the new Vortech H.O. SC mentioned in the OP. I know the engines are nearly identical, but I believe the heads were a re-design for the Mustang (the compression might not even be the same, which would be a major issue with a SC, but I am not certain about that). [/b][/quote]
T-sting he is not a friend of mine but a company Explorer Express that been selling superchargers for the 4.0 for years that run at 6psi and running WITOUT an intercooler.
The cylinder compression ratio has not changed and has been 9.7.1 all the way back to 2000 or 2001, also the heads were not redesigned just for the Mustang.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AMWill
Vendor Showcase
0
7/16/15 04:26 PM