Been running a thread over in the 5.0 section on my build
but figured lot of you guys probably dont look over there.
351W/357ci swap with DIS ignition running on AEM computer and LS-1 coil packs
Shooting for 600+rwhp with mild boost of 10-12psi
Twin Garrett 60mm turbos and custom turbo cam
Fuel system is spec'd out to support 700+rwhp, so I can turn up
the boost if want. Probably end up running boost control thru the AEM as well
Watch out Terminators ........................
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
Plaque in Statue of Liberty
Sponsored Links
This ad is not displayed to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
SWEET RIDE!!!!! with 10 psi youll get way more then you bargained for in hp #s. if the block can handle it, crank that boost to about 16 and youll easily get 750+. awsome
__________________
FLOODZILLA
Screw disney, A junkyard is the happiest place on earth!
Are the turbo's held on by a V clamp ??? and did you take shorties and make the headers or did you have a complete custom set made and if so how much did you have to shell out for them ??? I have to say that this makes me want to complete my project car. Any paticular reason you went with a LS-1 coil packs or just to make it easier to time and tune?
I am looking at the headers and the "midpipe" between the Headers and the Turbo....Are you going to tap into that for the Wastegate ??? I was also wondering what your thoughts on the MegaSquirt EMS and if you would use it on your setup ??? I am planning on using this EMS and I am a little hesitant about it. I am building a similar project its a 88 coupe with 351W that is punched out to 408 ci and I wanna run either 205 or 225 heads (What is your thoughts on this?) with a compression ratio of about 9.0-9.5:1 then throwing on a twin turbo setup ( I will probably build the hot side myself but what size turbo do you feel that would do the best for spool time and efficiency? ) running about 4-8 psi on low boost and 10-12 psi on high boost. If all my questions get annoying let me know.
id watch your compression on most cars at anything over 10psi anything higher then 9:1 compression would be too high, its a general rule some times u can get away with it but then agian some people will have head gasket probelms at 9:1
__________________
95 gt vert: 331 stroker, d-1sc @ 10 lbs,582 rwhp 511 ft. Tq
2003 sonic blue cobra KB 2.2 @ 15psi,supporting mod, solid 8.8, anderson ford PMS
id watch your compression on most cars at anything over 10psi anything higher then 9:1 compression would be too high, its a general rule some times u can get away with it but then agian some people will have head gasket probelms at 9:1
It's not the headgasket, its the tune ............ its all in the tune and the computer running it.
People like to blame compression levels and headgaskets, but its really crappy stock computers and over aggressive tunes
that blow motors and h/gs
Fox351: How much power are you looking to make ?
A 408W with 225cc heads and twin turbos will make 1000rwhp, do you really want that much power?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
k ill let him run stock head gaskets at 9.5:1 compression and we will see what happens, tune does play a big role but if your cylinder pressures are too high there is just nothing you can do except get a stronger head gasket and as cylinder pressures rise so do heat ratings, with added heat comes detonation, which will end up requiring you to run higher octane fuel etc. etc.. , compression is a big role.
__________________
95 gt vert: 331 stroker, d-1sc @ 10 lbs,582 rwhp 511 ft. Tq
2003 sonic blue cobra KB 2.2 @ 15psi,supporting mod, solid 8.8, anderson ford PMS
I was looking into the 6-700 hp range.....I was unaware that the combo would make such huge power....I thought I could run that and get within that power rating obviously I was sorely mistaken.