05 Stangs and drag racing? [Archive]

animal

01-17-2005, 07:43 AM

Brian98GTP

01-17-2005, 07:49 AM

I know I'm one of the 2 or 3 ford guys who even dares stay on this board.

When did they start letting Ford guys on this board....??? :D :goof :durr

SmokinRAM114

01-17-2005, 08:29 AM

[/QUOTE]Now, if you guys are right, and those times are WITH this engine management kicking in, I can't wait to see what simply removing it with a pcm flash will do. Give it 3-6 months and even hypertech will have another crappy moron-proof programmer to turn this off.[/QUOTE]

PS. Hypertechs is already on the summit racing site.. :thumbsup

animal

01-17-2005, 10:12 AM

PS. Hypertechs is already on the summit racing site.. :thumbsup

Oh m'bad :)

BadAzzGTA89

01-17-2005, 10:23 AM

Well if this is all true whoever buys one of these should have a huge brake on insurance!Or is this the begining of ford being the anti christ :goof :rolf

jbiscuit

01-17-2005, 10:26 AM

drive by wire sucks...like Tom said, the "MAN" is trying to keep us all from breaking stuff. BMW has been doing that on the M3 for years (the repeated abuse-shutdown thing). I would only be a few weeks before someone figured out how to bypass it anyways. It seems like it has already been addressed.

BOSS LX

01-17-2005, 12:49 PM

An 05 GT has already gone high 12's with just a re-flash on street tires.

Remember guys, this is only the GT! :thumbsup

Prince Valiant

01-17-2005, 01:07 PM

An 05 GT has already gone high 12's with just a re-flash on street tires.

Remember guys, this is only the GT! :thumbsup
:rolf

Flight_740

01-17-2005, 01:38 PM

An 05 GT has already gone high 12's with just a re-flash on street tires.

Remember guys, this is only the GT! :thumbsup

So when are you going to sell yours and buy one?

BOSS LX

01-17-2005, 04:45 PM

So when are you going to sell yours and buy one?

NEVER!!!
:D

My go fast car will always have pushrods and a distributer.

Syclone0044

01-17-2005, 10:32 PM

An 05 GT has already gone high 12's with just a re-flash on street tires.

Remember guys, this is only the GT! :thumbsup

It will be a long time before any Naturally aspirated 4.6L Ford SOHC engine (or DOHC for that matter) strikes fear in me!! Is there anything new in the 05 GT's motor that hasn't been in all the doggy 4.6's all along? (Honest question - I really dont know.)

PS: I am with you Andy, my cars will have pushrods, distributors, and a Throttle Cable connecting my right foot to the butterflies!!! Although I wouldn't mind parting with the distributor for a nice DIS coil setup.

ExStyle

01-17-2005, 11:05 PM

You've all got it wrong its to save proud new mustang owners the humiliation of being beat by a real car :banana

animal

01-18-2005, 12:08 AM

Is there anything new in the 05 GT's motor that hasn't been in all the doggy 4.6's all along? (Honest question - I really dont know.)

Yes, there are 3 valve sohc heads on the new 4.6's. It is a completely new design, though I don't know how much it differs from the 3v head on the 5.4 2004 F-150's. In the past the heads were the same but honestly I haven't looked into it much on the new 4.6/5.4 They are 9.8:1 instead of 9.4:1 like the earlier 2v motors. If memory serves me, the earlier ones were cast iron blocks where the new 4.6's are aluminum. There is also a major update to the intake manifold. It looks a bit like the ls1 intake manifold imo (tbody is right up front). The stock 05 stang has a goofy(imho) stock air plenum between the air box and throttle body, but I'm sure an intake is out by now to fix that problem without issue. It's really only a matter of a 90* bend and a open element filter. I don't know the exact specs on the heads or anything else, but a web savy guy like you could probably find them pretty easily if you're really interested. One interesting point, the dash lights can be easily changed at the touch of a button to one of 125 different colors.

Anyways, thank you for asking an honest question and not being an ass. :thumbsup

Syclone0044

01-18-2005, 12:51 AM

Wow, a 3 valve head - that is pretty unusual. Interesting about the compression. Thanks for the info animal; I guess you answered my question pretty completely!! I didn't really have any idea they changed the engine so much. I'll look into it some more to see what else I can find. :)

01-18-2005, 04:01 AM

Christ, you guys would have someone believe that it'll kill the engine if you accelerate harder than old lady in a motorized cart. I know I'm one of the 2 or 3 ford guys who even dares stay on this board. But, I can assure you it's not nearly as bad as you all claim it is. While I still don't like drive-by-wire as a concept at all (just the disconnected feeling) the car will still spin the tires pretty heavily if you want it to (i've done it first hand on a test drive!), and I've already read mid-high 13's posted off the showroom floor quite a few times already, which seemed reasonable to me after feeling the acceleration.

Now, if you guys are right, and those times are WITH this engine management kicking in, I can't wait to see what simply removing it with a pcm flash will do. *EDIT* Even hypertech has one of their crappy moron-proof programmers to turn this off. */edit*

More like we are having some fun with the subject than gettin paranoid.

There are probably a few extra details about it that we don't have right now.

About that "drive-by-wire" concept. it is the same idea as the servo's in an RC car: a sensor to something, such as the gas pedal, is connected to a servo at the throttle body. Press the gas and the tb opens. Add to that how a controller such as traction control can close the tb rather than mis a sperk or use the brakes. ABS is a drive-by-wire system and so are power mirrors.

Drive by wire just replaces the mechanical linkages with wires and servo's.

animal

01-18-2005, 07:52 AM

i understand what drive-by-wire entails, I'm not a fan of it really at all at least for throttle control. But then again I like carburators too.

Prince Valiant

01-18-2005, 08:26 AM

Wow, a 3 valve head - that is pretty unusual. Actually, a 3V OHC head is not too unusual....mercedes used one for years here in the US. A couple of other manufactuers, if memory serves, have used them as well in the foreign markets more prominently. Another difference of the 4.6 3V vs that of the older 2V design is that it uses a variable valve timing similar to that of "vtech" fame allowing for greater average power, and a more aggressive lobe for higher peak power than what would otherwise be prudent on a street driven production car.

What is unusual is the aftermarket heads from barry grant (i pretty sure it's barry grant of carb fame) that has been developed for the classic small block chevy that is using a 3V design will still using pushrods(!!!)...I haven't seen them for sale yet, or any suggested pricing. They were at the SEMA show in vegas just this year though.

animal

01-18-2005, 08:35 AM

Another difference of the 4.6 3V vs that of the older 2V design is that it uses a variable valve timing similar to that of "vtech" fame allowing for greater average power, and a more aggressive lobe for higher peak power than what would otherwise be prudent on a street driven production car.

Man, how could I have forgotten that. Well it was late, that is my excuse. Thanks for filling that in.

BOSS LX

01-18-2005, 06:57 PM

It will be a long time before any Naturally aspirated 4.6L Ford SOHC engine (or DOHC for that matter) strikes fear in me!! Is there anything new in the 05 GT's motor that hasn't been in all the doggy 4.6's all along? (Honest question - I really dont know.)

PS: I am with you Andy, my cars will have pushrods, distributors, and a Throttle Cable connecting my right foot to the butterflies!!! Although I wouldn't mind parting with the distributor for a nice DIS coil setup.

Josh, the ford mod motors are impressive NA. The 03 and 04 MACH 1 will run with a LS1 camaro. I drove a 05 Mustang and it is strong. There is talk of a NA 400 hp Mustang, and there will also be a 500+hp super charged Mustang.

The thing about the mod motors are that they respond to boost very well. There are 03 and 04 Cobras well in the 9's with stock short blocks and heads.

At the big Ford events I see NA mod motors that are street driven that would put my car on the trailer. Just because no one around this area puts the money into one, doesn't mean they do not exist.

animal

01-18-2005, 08:35 PM

FYI Josh, the 03-04 dohc 4.6 mach 1's are 10.1:1 compression from the factory alot more than the old 4.6 dohc n/a cobras were 9.8:1, plus the machs have a factory straight axle in the rear instead of that goofy irs. One can't overlook the 70ci handicap they have either.

scubastang

01-24-2005, 09:26 PM

Josh, the ford mod motors are impressive NA. The 03 and 04 MACH 1 will run with a LS1 camaro. I drove a 05 Mustang and it is strong. There is talk of a NA 400 hp Mustang, and there will also be a 500+hp super charged Mustang.

The thing about the mod motors are that they respond to boost very well. There are 03 and 04 Cobras well in the 9's with stock short blocks and heads.

At the big Ford events I see NA mod motors that are street driven that would put my car on the trailer. Just because no one around this area puts the money into one, doesn't mean they do not exist.

its always been cheaper to go pushrod, but things are changing. Mod motor blocks are beasts (sucks they are wide suckers) - than can take 1000+rwhp no problem, something only dart, r302 etc blocks can do. Efficient designs, heads that flow very good CFM (4V) out of the box - you cant beat it. Stock 4V heads have been into the 8s and I am sure the 3V could easily be pushed into the 9s. Prices are almost comparable to pushrod parts now as well. Many mustang owners have taken the 96-98 4V (better heads) and just replaced the rods/pistons, slap on a turbo or blower and make silly power. Here is the ultimate leg humper fox mod motor car:

http://www.modularfox.com/Gallery/photos/5/154/600x450.aspx
http://www.modularfox.com/Gallery/photos/5/155/600x450.aspx
http://www.modularfox.com/Gallery/photos/5/157/600x365.aspx

Prince Valiant

01-24-2005, 10:50 PM

Efficient designs, heads that flow very good CFM (4V) out of the box - you cant beat it. Sorry, but I take exception with this statment...

Here is a chart from a ford magazine showing all the head flow data for the various heads...

http://mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/138_0406_flow_chart_z.jpg

Shows the 99 cobra coming in around 243cfm peak flow, the 97's around 249cfm.Stock 3V heads came in around 238... Not bad...I guess:rolleyes: (actually, that's the point...it's NOT bad)

but understand you said "you can't beat it". That's very untrue.

But, from my understanding, stock ls1 heads flow ~240, ls6 heads flow around 270. Hell, the new ls7 heads for the 427 flow almost 320cfm! Go over to the mopar camp and the stock 5.7 hemi's head flow 270cfm peak (truck heads!!!), and the new 6.1 pulls in ~ 320cfm as well (from small valves!)

These are clearly "beating" the mod motors head flow numbers...

Yeesh. Gonna have to buy the ford guys cheerleading outfits, and a white cane with a red stripe around it's base :rolf

When is someone going to admit it? The mod motor is a compromise motor. It was meant to go into front drive lincolns and that was it (hence it's not very long! small bore+narrow bore spacing=short motor!)...rather than invest money to update the windsor motors or develop another all new v8 they ended up pressing the mod motor into service for all v8 applictions, phasing out the windsor's completely. When the motor needed to grow, because of the narrow bores that wouldn't accept a significantly larger bore, they raised the deck and put a long stroke crank in it...to get all of 5.4 liters...when that wasn't enough, they put two more cylinders on there. I mean, if the mod was so great, Why is ford plainning an all-new pushrod v8? :confused

secondly: ALL MOTORS RESPOND WELL TO BOOST IF BUILT TOUGH ENOUGH. sheesh. Even the horrid-for-power mopar 2.2 4 banger has pushed cars to low 10's with enough boost :rolleyes:

Syclone0044

01-25-2005, 09:48 PM

secondly: ALL MOTORS RESPOND WELL TO BOOST IF BUILT TOUGH ENOUGH. sheesh.
AMEN! Statement of the month. Something I have been wanting to say for a long time but never knew just how to put it. :thumbsup

Now with that being said, I do also beleive that small bore and 4V heads lend themselves the BEST to high boost and high detonation-resistance, especially compared to larger bore, 2V motors.

animal

01-25-2005, 10:25 PM

These are clearly "beating" the mod motors head flow numbers...

I'll give you that any day of the week.

Now first off, thanks for posting the head flow numbers. I'm kinda curious to see if there's a difference with the later "PI" 2v heads that came on the later GT's. But aside from that, one also has to take into account that the 281cid mustang motor is not moving as much air as a 350cid motor either. Does that excuse the numbers being much lower than others? Probably not, but having them that low wouldn't effect a 4.6 as much as it would the same numbers on a 5.7 would it? Taking the heads you mentioned at 320cfm...

the 281 is 80% the size of a 350.

So those 320cfm flow numbers at 80% are 256cfm... which is pretty darn close to the actual 3v and 4v head numbers and well over proportionally to the ls6 head numbers (80% = 216cfm).

Assuming that the flow:cid comparison of chevy is dead on, the ford isn't that far off really when you look at it proportionally. But really does it need the same brute force flow number for a smaller engine? From what I've heard, too high of a flow can hurt performance just like the wrong cam or intake (right tom?). Whether that was fords intention we will probably never know, but it doesn't seem, to me, fair to compare the two apples to apples.

I realize my theory is thrown off on the 5.4 though, and for that I have no excuse except for a blower :)

Good statement on boost though.

Lash

01-25-2005, 10:37 PM

http://www.modularfox.com/Gallery/photos/5/157/600x365.aspx

Nice car...but whats with the carbon fiber fart cannons?

Prince Valiant

01-25-2005, 10:54 PM

But really does it need the same brute force flow number for a smaller engine? You are mostly correct on the high flow killing the driving characteristics of a small cube motor...more importantly it is the veolicity of the air through the ports though. Many high flow heads acheive high cfm numbers via large volume runners (cc's...such as afr 185/195/205/etc/etc/etc)

A given engine of 281 cubic inches will consume a given amount of fuel air for given rpm, right?

So if the volume is small, the air flows quickly. If the volume is large, it flows slowly. And it's all because it's got to flow the same amount of cfm's at a given rpm.

But a well designed head can still flow high cfm's, while retaining a smallish volume consistent with the needs of a street car, such as the ls1/hemi's/mods.

So basically all I am saying is that more important than raw flow numbers, it is port volume that will indicate how streetable a head will be...because the port volume will give you and idea of the intake air velocity which helps with peak torque production in a car...and of course, the velocity isn't just controlled by the head volume, but in conjunction with the cam...longer a valve is open, the slower the velocity of air that needed to fill the cylinder and vice versa.

But as for "proportional" comparisons: (by the way, the ls7 heads that flow 320cfm are intended to feed 427ci, not 350/348/368ish ci of the new ls2...)

In the end, it's the amount of cfm a head supports that ultimately limits a cars HP potential. If you were to take the stock 4V heads at 248cfm and stick them on a 4.6 or a 5.4, you'll ultimately end up with the same HP. The 4.6 will of course make less torque, but because it has less cubes to feed, it'll be able to rev higher before the heads become too restrictive. The 5.4 will make more torque, but won't be able to rev as high becuase it'll ask for too much air at a lower rpm. Since HP is a function of torque and rpm, the higher torque of the 5.4 times the lower rpm will be virtually equal of the lower torque times the higher rpm of the 4.6, provided all else is equal, and provided that the head is the restriction...

although build two different size motors, use same everything else (heads/cam/exhaust/throttle body/etc) and the same should be true: Same HP, but different Torque peak, and different rpm's at which peak HP is obtained.

This is all because HP is a unit of work, and the work being measure is how much air are you moving. That's truly is it.

FWIW, head flow numbers can tell you how much HP the heads can support...in the case of the 4V mod heads with 248cfm, box stock they can support a little over 500hp provided enough cam/compression/good exhaust/intake/etc. Try and go over that, even with good components elsewhere and the head will restrict you.

animal

01-25-2005, 11:39 PM

So basically all I am saying is that more important than raw flow numbers, it is port volume that will indicate how streetable a head will be...

I guess maybe I'm reading your original post wrong then, since you posted flow numbers and not port volume?

Or maybe your statement about the other heads "beating" the ford heads in flow didn't take into account the application? :confused

Well I guess at least the 3v heads are showing some nice numbers against the 4v.

Prince Valiant

01-25-2005, 11:56 PM

I guess maybe I'm reading your original post wrong then, since you posted flow numbers and not port volume? I was just answering this thought:
But really does it need the same brute force flow number for a smaller engine? From what I've heard, too high of a flow can hurt performance just like the wrong cam or intake (right tom?) In that no, it's not really the too much flow that hurts performance...it's IF the port velocity is too slow, because of too large a port volume. This was while pointing out that there is usually a correlation to high flow and port volume, but that the two aren't mutually exclusive together...that high flow numbers can come from heads with small volume.

Or maybe your statement about the other heads "beating" the ford heads in flow didn't take into account the application? I then tried to show that the application or the size of the motor means little when dealing with ultimate HP potential of a motor with said heads...the head flow numbers that will limit HP regardless of engine size.

Well I guess at least the 3v heads are showing some nice numbers against the 4v. The only thing of concern is the drop off the 3V heads have in the exhaust numbers...but that won't be too hard to deal with, the aftermarket cam grinders will just go with a more pronounced dual pattern with more duration and lift for the exhaust lobes for the 3V heads vs what they've been using for a 4V...of course, the more duration of the exhaust lobe will yeild more overlap, and how much the fuel injection will live with happily will be an issue...

Brian98GTP

01-26-2005, 10:58 AM

Our 2V heads OWNZ ALL!!.... :goof :crying :crying

------------------------------

01-26-2005, 02:15 PM

I mean, if the mod was so great, Why is ford plainning an all-new pushrod v8? :confused

Where did you hear that?

Below are many random aspects not previously given.

As for cfm, the more air that can pass through means more air to burn. If you have a smaller cylinder, then you need to spin it faster to consume the same ammount of air to convwert to power.

Example: a 4.6L engine needs to spin 1.24x faster to consume the same ammount of air as a 5.7L (5.7/4.6 = 1.2391304...) if the flow numbers are the same.

Other flow variations are due to frictions within the intake and exhaust runners related to their calibrated flow in relation to the amount of air entering the cylinder per cycle.

Also, do not forget that the air in the runners sit (somewhat) untill the valve opens.

For the Calculus and Physics people:
1. Think of the flow through the valves as a sine-wave with the negative values eliminated by moving the wave vertically on the y-axis. Then remove the second through fourth waves per 4-wave cycle (25% duty cycle, valve only open 25% of time, open during intake cycle (scavengine excluded along with many other things). The highest point of the wave is when the valve is opened fully.

2. Next, assign flow the values from the chart to the positions of the valve (flow @.050, .1 .2...) and estimate the values for the lifts between.

3. Next, relate the position of the valve to the position of the piston and account for the geometry related to the rod/stroke ratio to the motion of the pistion. Calculate the change in cylinder volume along with the total volume of the cylinder. Also account for the compression ration

4. Next consider the actual vacuum created by the downward motion of the pistion assuming that the pressure at tdc was 1 bar (no vacuum (omit scavange).

5. Next calculate the volume of air entering the cylinder in relation to the difference in pressure and the charachteristics of the air composition (specific weight, acceleration related to the difference in vacuum)
Optional: account for the drag coefficient of the valves in relation to air flow at given pressure delta values.

6. Do not forget to account for the air which has already entered the cylinder and its effect on the vacuum when calculating the rate incoming air.

This should be enough to get a General number.

Also try:
Find the RMS of a 1 after being added to a sinewave. Divide it by 4 for a theoretical total flow rate for the cylinder per engine cycle (2 revolutions) assiming the cylinder vacuum is a constant.

SIMPLY PUT:
Air flow numbers only account for ONE out of MANY vaariables. In fact, the ideal flow numbers given by a flow tester mean very little when combined with the other inductance factors!

(I think Doc Dave can back this one up (I'm not sure))

Those people working for the "Big three" know that there is alot more science to port design than peak flow rates.

The alternative to all of the science and math is to be born a "savant" to the subject.

scubastang

01-26-2005, 05:49 PM

Sorry, but I take exception with this statment...

Here is a chart from a ford magazine showing all the head flow data for the various heads...

http://mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/138_0406_flow_chart_z.jpg

Shows the 99 cobra coming in around 243cfm peak flow, the 97's around 249cfm.Stock 3V heads came in around 238... Not bad...I guess:rolleyes: (actually, that's the point...it's NOT bad)

but understand you said "you can't beat it". That's very untrue.

But, from my understanding, stock ls1 heads flow ~240, ls6 heads flow around 270. Hell, the new ls7 heads for the 427 flow almost 320cfm! Go over to the mopar camp and the stock 5.7 hemi's head flow 270cfm peak (truck heads!!!), and the new 6.1 pulls in ~ 320cfm as well (from small valves!)

These are clearly "beating" the mod motors head flow numbers...

Yeesh. Gonna have to buy the ford guys cheerleading outfits, and a white cane with a red stripe around it's base :rolf

When is someone going to admit it? The mod motor is a compromise motor. It was meant to go into front drive lincolns and that was it (hence it's not very long! small bore+narrow bore spacing=short motor!)...rather than invest money to update the windsor motors or develop another all new v8 they ended up pressing the mod motor into service for all v8 applictions, phasing out the windsor's completely. When the motor needed to grow, because of the narrow bores that wouldn't accept a significantly larger bore, they raised the deck and put a long stroke crank in it...to get all of 5.4 liters...when that wasn't enough, they put two more cylinders on there. I mean, if the mod was so great, Why is ford plainning an all-new pushrod v8? :confused

secondly: ALL MOTORS RESPOND WELL TO BOOST IF BUILT TOUGH ENOUGH. sheesh. Even the horrid-for-power mopar 2.2 4 banger has pushed cars to low 10's with enough boost :rolleyes:

you are comparing brand new heads to older "dated" heads. You def have some good knowledge rearding port volumes and CFM above (dont really have time to read it all) - but as you pointed out, cfm flow is good, but really not the end all. Velocity is key, espeically in boosted apps. Like you said, port design and other things IMO are very important. I guess you could look at the mod motor as a comprimise, and i didn't mean "you can't beat it" literally, because like you point out, its very easily beatable. Christ if CFM is that important to you, you can port almost anything to high #ers, I was just saying the 4V heads and motor is a great base to start with. My original point is, it has been proven mand times, box stock 4V cobra headed mod motors can go fast very easily, and have been into the 8s already. I really dont look at the N/A aspect of things becasue I will never have a N/A sports car and dont see a point i guess??? My point is, for the normal guy, 4V heads are plenty enough to support major HP, and mod motors can handle a ton of HP for very little money compared to what they used too. I keep with the KISS theory (and turning up the boost knob a bit more ;) ) :thumbsup

Prince Valiant

01-26-2005, 09:58 PM

I really dont look at the N/A aspect of things becasue I will never have a N/A sports car and dont see a point i guess??? Ah, because N/A shows you who did their homework, and who didn't :goof

Boost is the great "Equalizer". It covers your flaws. It covers your limitations. It makes life easy for you up till 9/10ths effort. But in the end, max effort, better designs will always win.... :shades

Syclone0044

01-27-2005, 01:05 AM

HA! scubastang I can identify 100% when you said what is the point of having an N/A sportscar LOL!!

Ah, because N/A shows you who did their homework, and who didn't :goof

Boost is the great "Equalizer". It covers your flaws. It covers your limitations. It makes life easy for you up till 9/10ths effort. But in the end, max effort, better designs will always win.... :shades

I view N/A performance engines the same way I view starting fires by rubbing sticks together, or Vinyl records vs. CDs. These things work fine and have a time and a place - but better ways have been found long ago! :D N/A engines are nice if you are short on cash, short on space (packaging size), or just like a good artificial limitation placed on your tasks.. But with boost you can get the same HP result with twice the torque without the exponential decrease in motor life expetancy (not to mention mileage/streetability) associated with a high RPM N/A motor of high output. (And when you dont have Boost to turn up - the only way to increase power significantly always leads to raising RPM at the direct cost of those factors.)

I think you're a bit off on your view of boost being such a equalizer. If this were true, results of various owner's boosted performance motors would be closer than a comparable set of N/A motors. However, the opposite is true. There is a HUGE variance in resulting output when you take a sample of very similarly equipped (turbocharged especially) boosted cars. The change can be dramatic and usually is - dropping seconds with increased boost / tuning. Results would be all over the map, and as far as I'm concerned, the results scale perfectly linearly with the owner/tuner's skill. As far as "9/10ths"... Completely disagree... I strongly get the impression you have never tried tuning a turbo car for max HP to find out just how easy or difficult it may actually be.

I would borrow your statement and bastardize it a little bit to say: "But in the end, max effort, turbocharged designs will always win" :rolf :goof :devil

Prince Valiant

01-27-2005, 01:18 AM

I think you're a bit off on your view of boost being such a equalizer Uh, and I think your "off" on your views about boost. It's almost like porn to you, sicko :wow :D

meh, have it your way. The better motor for NA applications will still be the better motor for boost as well. Certain features may help make life easy for tuning...but most all tuning issues are still resolveable.

Boost. Great as it is, still covers asses.

Syclone0044

01-27-2005, 01:21 AM

Hey no hard feelings, you can feel free to argue with me??? :confused I was hoping you had some comments on why you feel that boost covers asses.

Prince Valiant

01-27-2005, 01:36 AM

Hey no hard feelings, you can feel free to argue with me??? :confused I was hoping you had some comments on why you feel that boost covers asses. Because it can make a poorly designed, or thought out engine go like bejeezus. I've got no hard feelings :confused

Hence "ALL MOTORS RESPOND WELL TO BOOST"

But:

There's no replacement for displacement except turbocharging, supercharging, nitrous oxide, compression, RPM, methanol or nitromethane. I don't get the rationale for this^^ :confused

It's a simple mix of chemistry and physics.

Turbocharging IS displacement. Supercharging IS displacement. NOx IS displacement. When you Rev higher, you ARE displacing more air. compression isn't a replacement for displacement...just a basic ingredient for an engine to run at peak volumetric efficiency. Methanol certainly doesn't replace displacement one bit...it only boost octane. Nitromethane is a more combustable fuel...displacement limitations (whether NA/boosted) and physicis still stand.

again, I got no hard feelings. Never have with people I disagree with.

ponyride00

01-27-2005, 03:09 AM

If you guys have time, you should check out modularmustangs.net. It is an interseting site with a lot of fast modular cars. :thumbsup

Milw96Cobra

01-27-2005, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=Prince Valiant]
http://mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/138_0406_flow_chart_z.jpg

[QUOTE]

Valiant, that chart is SERIOUSLY flawed. There have been COUNTLESS numbers of flow benches run on 96-98 heads vs 99-01 heads, and the 96-98 heads ALWAYS come out on top.

HOWEVER... that doesnt neccesarily mean they are better. The 99-01 heads were redesigned and flow air FASTER than the 96-98's.

Prince Valiant

01-27-2005, 11:16 AM

Valiant, that chart is SERIOUSLY flawed. There have been COUNTLESS numbers of flow benches run on 96-98 heads vs 99-01 heads, and the 96-98 heads ALWAYS come out on top. Um, your reading must be flawed. the 97's (which fall in the range of 96-98) beat the 99's (99-01's)
:confused

I don't profess that chart's accuracy anyways. It comes for 5.0, a ford mag :D

scubastang

01-27-2005, 11:44 AM

Valient - a valient argument, as i understand your philosophy of making a n/a perform as it is a challenge, but its kinda like trying to teach a retarded kid to pick up women. You want to do it for the challenge, but there is really no point in the end.

Yes it covers your asses, flaws etc. THATS THE POINT. Its evolution, the eagle versus the mouse, the assault rifle versus the knife, the patriots versus the eagles, the US versus Iraq. ITS A POINTLESS! What are we doing here- tryin to make power right?

You talking about efficency, design of a N/A is good and all, but you are being serverly inefficient in the context of not utlizing the free power of boost. If your happy with mediocrity, then go ahead with n/a, but until you've sat in a 700+rwhp turbocharged monster, then STFU!! (haha j/k) :banana

edit: Magazines, especially 5.0, are definently not the most knowledgable people - they are money and advertising driven!! 5.0 is more geared towards the entry level bolt on enthusiasit IMO

BadAzzGTA89

01-27-2005, 11:53 AM

All i can say is nice lookin TPI there!! :goof
http://www.modularfox.com/Gallery/photos/5/155/600x450.aspx

Crawlin

01-27-2005, 11:53 AM

BadAzzGTA89

01-27-2005, 11:57 AM

Josh, the ford mod motors are impressive NA. The 03 and 04 MACH 1 will run with a LS1 camaro.

Not much said there i raced a newer mach1 off the line i launched on him hard and had him all the way to 70 when i let off!!! With my GTA

Prince Valiant

01-27-2005, 12:11 PM

edit: Magazines, especially 5.0, are definently not the most knowledgable people - they are money and advertising driven!! 5.0 is more geared towards the entry level bolt on enthusiasit IMO But flow benches are flowbenches. If all are tested by the same tester, and the same bench, with the same imposed conditions, then the numbers are considered "acurate". i know all about magazine and advertiser numbers, and when to believe, and when not to....

01-27-2005, 09:38 PM

All i can say is nice lookin TPI there!! :goof

That car doesn't look too stuffed under that hood.

Is there some kind of lowering mount to set that engine lower in there, or do they fit like that in a stock(ish) location? (meaning the tranny hasn't moved its location)

Milw96Cobra

01-28-2005, 01:58 AM

Valiant... you're asking a guy who researched head information... I nearly had Clint port/polish my heads before I a) realized that they flow'ed well already and b) realized i didn't have the money.

http://home.isoa.net/~mharrisj/fordhead.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608084241/www.cjscobratech.com/head.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20030608083124/www.cjscobratech.com/bvsc.html

Actually... I just realized why the test you showed, rates the 96-98 heads SO much lower.

They didn't remove the IMRC butterflies in the heads. It is one of the most common mods for 96-98 cobra owners.

In the 96-98 heads, A computer electronically closes 1 of the ports to the intake valves under 3250rpms to increase airflow to increase low rpm torque, then opens them up as the airflow increases. In the 99 & 01's the redesigned head didn't need the IMRC's.

Removing those butterflies, then getting a computer tune, makes that low end torque loss negligible, and also, of course, makes a big difference in the upper rpm's.

But as far as heads are concerned, the 96-98's heads are the stock flow winners.