RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
Login  | |
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/10/2007 2:08:55 AM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
This is out of a turbo motor that used to dyno at 400rwhp. Just pictues out of some guys post about his motor that almost installed a window in the block but the rods only bent instead of snapping. I would suppose this sort of mild failure was due to turbos having a softer hit compared to a positive displacement supercharger. I've never seen a supercharged motor bend rods, they generally snap them like twigs and shove them out the side of the block.
Cheers!
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/10/2007 2:13:39 AM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
The bottom end of the S197GT in NA form should be good to 8,000RPM for racing purposes. On the street 7,000RPM should be no problem as the real problem is valve control and lack of cam timing to support high RPM power. Install a set of Comp Cams 127300 sticks with beehives and Ti retainers and the power will be there and the valves should be good to 7,000+RPM per Comp tech support.
Cheers!
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/10/2007 6:56:22 PM
|
|
|
MusiccityGT
Posts: 1644
Joined: 1/20/2006
From: Nashville Tn
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
The bottom end of the S197GT in NA form should be good to 8,000RPM for racing purposes. On the street 7,000RPM should be no problem as the real problem is valve control and lack of cam timing to support high RPM power. Install a set of Comp Cams 127300 sticks with beehives and Ti retainers and the power will be there and the valves should be good to 7,000+RPM per Comp tech support.
Cheers!
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
_____________________________
Mods Page - http://wildhorsesclub.net/mods-page.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/10/2007 10:21:29 PM
|
|
|
Buschris
Posts: 42
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
yet...
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
< Message edited by Buschris -- 6/10/2007 10:37:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/10/2007 11:34:19 PM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
quote:
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
yet...
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
Many experinced engine builders think the information on the KB site is largely inflamatory, misleading and downright wrong. You need to read the KB web site very carefully, they say all kinds of misleading things that are intended to be used against their market competition. As soon as KB has a competative product all of a sudden it is the hot setup according to KB. Most of what KB says on thei website needs to be taken with a healthy helping of salt. If you want to believe everything you read on the KB site you would only buy KB parts that KB says are O.K. this week. IMO KB makes very good blowers and aside from the Saleen pump I favor the big KB pump myself. But this doesn't mean that KB is right about everything, far from it.
All things being equal and assumming the fuel delivery system is up to the task once you get the MAF transfer function tables correct with a particular intake system and blower the output should pretty much look the same on the dyno. There is no "magic" involved in tuning an engine, if it appears to be magic to you you should not be performing engine tuning. Detonation happens no matter who provided the boost under a given set of conditions. A good tuner just has to avoid detonation by not running the A/F too lean and not pushing the ignition timing to far, you cannot push detonation down by using more fuel either. As far as I know any blower will destroy the stock bottom end given enough full effort passes at the drag strip no matter what the tune is if the motor is pushing over 450rwhp. It is NOT the tune that makes the rods fail it is the rods themselves that are the problem.
AFAIK nobody with a streetable pump gas 3-valve motor who has built a 4.6l with a good fully forged rotating assembly has blown their engine due to a rod failure. AFAIK nobody with a stock bottom end has blown their engine due to a piston or crank failure that did not show signs of detonation. If anybody has evidence of this I'd love to see it and I can assure you that KB would have it on their website supporting their paranoid statements to potential buyers.
Cheers
< Message edited by F1Fan -- 6/12/2007 1:08:37 AM >
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/11/2007 12:13:08 AM
|
|
|
Buschris
Posts: 42
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
|
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 1:59:27 AM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
Lido may not have perfect knowledge in all things boosted. Intake charge temp is the biggest single factor in detonation after a fuel's resistance to pre-combustion and detonation and the combustion chamber's resistance to detonation. Intake charge temp rise is very dependent on the efficiency range you are operating whatever the supercharging device at.
The stock rods are not safe at 500bhp and no way safe at 500rwhp. This has been shown repeatedly and almost every tuner has had a 4.6l's sintered rods fail at lower power levels. Engine speed on an N/A motor is not a problem for the bottom end and even if you can get the valves under control which is easy to do now with the Comp beehives and Ti retainers I have not heard anybody say the valvetrain is good much past 7,000RPM due to the follower's mass and the hydrolic lifters collapsing. Like I said, even the stock bottom end of the 3-valve motor is good for up to 8,000RPM on a 4.6l N/A/ motor. Most folks that have extensive N/A racing 4-valve 4.6l Cobra motors will tell you this and the S197GT 3-valve motors use the same bottom end components as the old N/A Cobras did.
Back in the olden days we used to run endurance Porsche 911 Turbos flat out in 6 and 12 hour races and you know what? Our "normal" setting A/F ratio was 13.2:1 and fully rich was only 12.5:1 and these engines were bulletproof flat out for the 12 hour races. Many people are afraid of running a sharp tune on their engines but this is because they are not fully confident in their tune and understanding of the Ford ECU and what the program will do and can't trust that the fuel coming out the cheapest gas station in town that driver found at 2A.M. will actually be 93 octane fuel. Of course the 911 Turbo motors we ran were operating within a very narrow range of conditions and we had some rather exotic high octane imported race fuel which was a very toxic cocktail of petroleum distilates that you would need a hazmat permit for these days just to bring into the country.
I like turbos but have not seen a good street turbo installation on the S197GT yet. IMO if you are after power there is nothing that can touch a turbo but on the street? Give me a posative displacement screw airpump anyday. I used to drive a 911 Turbo and it was not a great street car due to the incredible hit the turbos produced whrn they came in. This was a long time ago and to be honest Porsche 911 Turbos were IMO very crude back in the late 70's but no other factory even had turbos on the street back then. That 930 was fast but too scary to drive quickly on the street due to the lag and massive hit you got when the boost came in.
I don't really know what a really steetable power level for the S197GT 3-valve engines. But I do know that there are some built 750rwhp Vortec S197GT's with automatics out there that are scary fast and they drive like factory. But IDK, 750rwhp is maybe a bit much IMO. I'll be happy to hit 350-360rwhp N/A.
Cheers!
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 2:42:02 AM
|
|
|
fordfanboy
Posts: 1527
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
Lido may not have perfect knowledge in all things boosted. Intake charge temp is the biggest single factor in detonation after a fuel's resistance to pre-combustion and detonation and the combustion chamber's resistance to detonation. Intake charge temp rise is very dependent on the efficiency range you are operating whatever the supercharging device at.
The stock rods are not safe at 500bhp and no way safe at 500rwhp. This has been shown repeatedly and almost every tuner has had a 4.6l's sintered rods fail at lower power levels. Engine speed on an N/A motor is not a problem for the bottom end and even if you can get the valves under control which is easy to do now with the Comp beehives and Ti retainers I have not heard anybody say the valvetrain is good much past 7,000RPM due to the follower's mass and the hydrolic lifters collapsing. Like I said, even the stock bottom end of the 3-valve motor is good for up to 8,000RPM on a 4.6l N/A/ motor. Most folks that have extensive N/A racing 4-valve 4.6l Cobra motors will tell you this and the S197GT 3-valve motors use the same bottom end components as the old N/A Cobras did.
Back in the olden days we used to run endurance Porsche 911 Turbos flat out in 6 and 12 hour races and you know what? Our "normal" setting A/F ratio was 13.2:1 and fully rich was only 12.5:1 and these engines were bulletproof flat out for the 12 hour races. Many people are afraid of running a sharp tune on their engines but this is because they are not fully confident in their tune and understanding of the Ford ECU and what the program will do and can't trust that the fuel coming out the cheapest gas station in town that driver found at 2A.M. will actually be 93 octane fuel. Of course the 911 Turbo motors we ran were operating within a very narrow range of conditions and we had some rather exotic high octane imported race fuel which was a very toxic cocktail of petroleum distilates that you would need a hazmat permit for these days just to bring into the country.
I like turbos but have not seen a good street turbo installation on the S197GT yet. IMO if you are after power there is nothing that can touch a turbo but on the street? Give me a posative displacement screw airpump anyday. I used to drive a 911 Turbo and it was not a great street car due to the incredible hit the turbos produced whrn they came in. This was a long time ago and to be honest Porsche 911 Turbos were IMO very crude back in the late 70's but no other factory even had turbos on the street back then. That 930 was fast but too scary to drive quickly on the street due to the lag and massive hit you got when the boost came in.
I don't really know what a really steetable power level for the S197GT 3-valve engines. But I do know that there are some built 750rwhp Vortec S197GT's with automatics out there that are scary fast and they drive like factory. But IDK, 750rwhp is maybe a bit much IMO. I'll be happy to hit 350-360rwhp N/A.
Cheers!
Some solid information but I just want to add that one of the main limiting factors to cams also is the VCT. Doing a VCT delete allows you to spin the stockers (and aftermarket) cams much farther. Most of the drivetrain issues on the stockers aren't really in the camshafts - it's been in lifters failing and then subsequent damage to the camshafts resulting form the lifter failure.
Most know where I stand on turbos for street use. I am definitely not the most knowledgable guy, but I'm rpetty sure I've done more turbo set-ups and testing than anyone else out there on the S197 and I say stoutly - turbo = great for track and BAD for street.
I've said it before, replace your passenger seat with a giant waterbox and maybe we're talking different but with the air cooled options out there now, I would not use any of the current turbo kits on a DD.
_____________________________
ST Motorsports built 05 Roush
My Car
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 8:25:42 AM
|
|
|
Buschris
Posts: 42
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
|
that certainly gives me a couple of things to think about. so you guys think a twin screw would be best for all around street use. now, would you say a whipple would be a good choice? and just exactly
how efficient are these intercoolers on twin screws compared to an air-to-air intercooler? the only s/c i have had was on my 89 supercoupe, matter of fact i still have that and was considering using it on my
recently traded V6 as there was a guy making manifolds and intake tubes on ebay. that would have been an easy 50-60hp. for $1500. i have friend at work with a new keene bell 2.6 on his and it seems
very powerful and smooth. i didn't really want to do anything to the engine because of my 75k warranty, that and the fact this is my daily driver. definately gives me time to think about what would be best to do
and the lesson in a/f and stuff you gave really was something to consider. btw, what exactly is a perfect a/f ratio? isn't it something like 13.5:1?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 12:44:00 PM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fordfanboy
Some solid information but I just want to add that one of the main limiting factors to cams also is the VCT. Doing a VCT delete allows you to spin the stockers (and aftermarket) cams much farther. Most of the drivetrain issues on the stockers aren't really in the camshafts - it's been in lifters failing and then subsequent damage to the camshafts resulting form the lifter failure.
Most know where I stand on turbos for street use. I am definitely not the most knowledgable guy, but I'm rpetty sure I've done more turbo set-ups and testing than anyone else out there on the S197 and I say stoutly - turbo = great for track and BAD for street.
I've said it before, replace your passenger seat with a giant waterbox and maybe we're talking different but with the air cooled options out there now, I would not use any of the current turbo kits on a DD.
Hi Fanboy,
What part of the VVT system is a problem? The only part of the VVT system I've seen as a problem is not mechanical but the general lack of any understanding of how the VVT system works and how to take full advanatage of VVT to improve power and torque across a particular cam's effecitve engine speed range. IMO the only reason tuners lock out VVT is due to a severe lack understanding of not only how but when to alter the timing of valve events for a given cam profile. I've never seen or heard of a diffinitive mechanical problem pinpointed in the VVT system aside from a lack of understanding about the pressure requirements of the VVT's cam phasing mechanisim when used with aftermarket high volume/high pressure oil pumps. I suppose that in some extremely high-boost applications the stock VVT cam positioning mechanisim may not be robust enough to deal with the additional load placed on the cams but for any N/A applications they should be more than adequate.
All of the valvetrain issues I've seen and heard of are largely centered around the lifters collapsing at high RPM and loss of valve control at high RPM due to the weight of the cam followers. Why Ford chose to use the old roller finger followers is a mystery to me. The majority of the engine makers in the world producing high-performance, multi-valve high-RPM heads are using lifters with direct acting buckets with either mechanical or hydralic means to provide valve clearance right on the valve stems. That's how you build reliable high-RPM, with low recipricating mass allowing excellent valve control and low maintainence. Of course this makes for a slightly taller head assembly but the 4.6l modulars already cut a pretty wide profile due to the excellent intake and exhaust port designs.
As I posted previosuly turbos are great for maximum effort road racing and dragstrip applications but a belt drive high volume screw supercharger IMO is the way to go on the street where the power is only used for brief spurts and the IAT rise is not really an issue due to the sheer volume of these pumps and small displacement of the S197 engine.
Cheers!
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 1:36:59 PM
|
|
|
Buschris
Posts: 42
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
|
so, let me see if I understand this VVT thing. Oil pressure runs this and the VVT advances and retards cam timing in regards to engine rpm?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 5:22:51 PM
|
|
|
F1Fan
Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
quote:
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
yet...
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
Hi buschris,
Here are some interesting facts you might find useful as a point of refrence.
During the development of the 03-04 390bhp Terminiator engines back in 2000 the stock 4-valve Cobra sintered metal rods kept breaking and making holes in the sides of the all the blocks during the early Eaton supercharger engine builds at Ford and Roush Racing. These are folks who I'm pretty sure know quite a bit more than Lido (or anybody else's name you care to drop), and I'm certain know how to build and tune an engine to make it last. The Ford development engines were stock 4-valve Cobra engines with the Eaton 112 blower bolted on top with engine output set a lot lower than the hoped for production configuration. These test engines were power limited at the time because the stock sintered metal (powdered metal to you), rods kept failing on the test stand and they were no where even close to the 400bhp output level. They built 20 confirmation engines and all of the engine failures were caused by the stock sintered metal rods failing. This almost caused 03/04 Cobras to being nothing more than an engineering excersise. But along came Manley to save the day at Roush's suggestion with their most excellent rods and as we all know the rest is history.
Cheers!
_____________________________
2005 Mineral Grey Mustang GT Coupe, Premium, M5, ICAP, IUP, Active Anti-theft, LoJack
Mods: Gave up trying to make it all fit, but ask if interested!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/12/2007 7:10:26 PM
|
|
|
Jito007
Posts: 241
Joined: 3/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Now you all got me scared. I would liek to keep my car for a while without messing anything up. I have a CAI with a tune UDP's and 4.10 gears. I will probably get some ARH LT in the next couple of weeks i was thinking of getting CAMs after that. will i run into any issues like i said earlier I would like to keep my car for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/13/2007 10:28:37 PM
|
|
|
MusiccityGT
Posts: 1644
Joined: 1/20/2006
From: Nashville Tn
Status: offline
|
The only failures do to VVT issues that have been mechanicaly related were due to excessive seat pressure from too aggressive of a spring rating. I.E.- Comps blower springs in a 3v with stage 4 cams caused the VVT to become very erratic at idle because the seat pressure overrode the ability of the VVT to control the cams. Busted the VVT sprocket, keyway in a cam, and rockers. Not sure if it trashed the valves on the pistons, I don't recall.
_____________________________
Mods Page - http://wildhorsesclub.net/mods-page.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/13/2007 11:49:42 PM
|
|
|
ModernMuscle
Posts: 363
Joined: 2/28/2007
Status: offline
|
hey guys, I saw a post about nitrous. Would the 150hp wet shot blow my engine with a few uses? I might hit the track once every two months, and might hit it on the street rarely. I am getting a tune from a 30 year experience mustang tuner/shop...anyhting else I should look at, besides the centerforce dual friction clutch I have coming?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/14/2007 2:47:48 AM
|
|
|
viking396
Posts: 3221
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
These motors N/A with a CAI and tune need to be shifted at or near 6500, I thought like you for a long time, I have since seen the light.
_____________________________
Vortech V2-SQ Supercharger
60' 1.769
1/8 7.901@90.15
1/4 12.20@113.50 - new best! 10/13/07
Best 1/4 on stock KDWS tires = 12.56@113.3
My 2006 Mustang GT Web Page
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/14/2007 2:51:33 AM
|
|
|
viking396
Posts: 3221
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Buschris
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
As much as gas is these days I put 50% 100 and 50% 93 into mine with the Vortech even with the street tune I have, better safe than sorry.
_____________________________
Vortech V2-SQ Supercharger
60' 1.769
1/8 7.901@90.15
1/4 12.20@113.50 - new best! 10/13/07
Best 1/4 on stock KDWS tires = 12.56@113.3
My 2006 Mustang GT Web Page
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3 - 6/20/2007 2:04:38 AM
|
|
|
PowerHitter
Posts: 25
Joined: 6/8/2007
Status: offline
|
F1Fan/Buschris:
It is Dseid2 here back as PowerHitter. My Dseid2 account got messed up and I can't log onto it, so I started a new account. You guys sure have gone over a lot of material on this post in my absence.
There is no doubt the guys that go for big horse power without beefing up their bottom ends run the risk of early engine failure. I say if you are going to do it, do it right the first time
I definitely agree with Buschris's reply back to me (quite a few posts ago) that if you are going to do the rods, do the pistons too and I would also say do the crank, bearing, wrist pins and fasteners, then bolt on a S/C.
But that stuff is not for me right not. I am happy with with the 311 RWHP that I got with just a couple of mods. For me torque, longevity and driveability are what I want for a street driven application. Plus the car should run high 12's with drag radials and a professional driver. How much more does one really need for the street?
Best Regards
_____________________________
07 GT M5, Eibach pro kit, FRPP dampers, Steeda [F/R A-R bars, A-R Brace, Adj STB, G-Trac, Adj PB, HD PB brace, Adj LCA's, UCA, CAI, SCT, HF inlet, CMCV delete, UDP's], BMR LCA Reloc, FRPP 4.10's, 255/45/18's, Hawk, 311 RWHP, 328 RWTQ, Kicker amp/dual 10s
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
