Anyone have a fast V6?

Discussion in 'SN95 V6 Mustang Tech' started by Pro-Hawk, Mar 14, 2004.


  1. Pro-Hawk

    Pro-Hawk New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was just wondering if anyone had done mods to there V6 other than exhaust and a K&N? I had seen in a magazine where a guys parents wouldn't get him a GT because he was just 16yrs. So he started hot roading his V6 stang out. I think he got it into the 13's after porting the heads, cam and a Vortech centr charger. Also which year of V6 is the best to use and has the most power ?

    Thanks
    #1
  2. 98CobraClone

    98CobraClone New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    to the first question, yes

    to the last: 99+ stangs are probably better due to a higher HP starting point and split port intake setup. All years, 94+ are good, but the 94-95 had bad head gasket problems from the factory (simple change)
    #2
  3. Pro-Hawk

    Pro-Hawk New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How fast are we talking ? Is your 98' a V6?

    Just how much Hp does the 99-04' V6 stangs put out anyways?

    Thanks
    #3
  4. 01White5spd

    01White5spd Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    99+ v6 is rated at 193 hp, so probably about 155-160hp at the wheels. Also, in 2001 there where some changes made to the engine so there is a little more hp and the torque curve is a little better for the 01+ v6.
    #4
  5. atlblue2000

    atlblue2000 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I put down 170/200 to the wheels with cai, ud crank pulley and duals. I have yet to be dynoed with the Vortech, but I think it helped some. :) Typical 99+ V6s will put down in the neighborhood of 270-280 rwhp with the 11psi Procharger. I opted for the less expensive, but also less powerful Vortech setup so I am looking for ~230-240 rwhp. Thats with nothing but dual exh, stock exh manifolds and cats.
    #5
  6. cobra232

    cobra232 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    my 98 hasen`t been formally run in the 1/4 but rough tests on the road lean towards about 13.7@100mph. here are my mods:

    ATI procharger 11psi 2 core intercooler
    Harland Sharpe 1.8 non adj roller rockers
    2.5 inch hooker dual exhaust kit Part #16864 with flowmaster 40`s
    Denso IT-20 iridium plugs
    MSD 8.5 superconductor wires
    3.73 with trak-lok
    B&M shift kit on the 4R70W
    226rwhp 267rwtorque with slipping tranny
    ---------------------------
    mods that i have but not installed yet:
    42lb injectors
    Pro-M 3inch UNIVER mass air flow meter calibrated for 42lb inj
    Pro-M chip
    MAC off road h pipe with random technology super hi flow cats welded in
    pro-built transmissions 4R70W upgrade and super rebuild kit
    ported 98 heads Flowing 288cfm intake and 223cfm exhaust @.500 lift
    homemade custom EFI spyder intake (from a reworked 2bbl 3.8 manifold)
    estimated rwhp once done: 320rwhp (i hope)
    #6
  7. ryanrule

    ryanrule impotent Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    theres a guy that twin turboed hies and ran 11.9
    #7
  8. Pro-Hawk

    Pro-Hawk New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cool deal guys :nice:

    240+ rwhp now where talking. I was getting worried a little that people wasn't hotroading these cars out. I don't own a V6 but I would think they could be made to really make a decent ricer eater :)

    160rwhp isn't to bad at all if ya ask me. Does the sticks come with 3.55 gears in them ? if so I would find me a auto car rear end usualy they came with 3.73's but not sure on newer models.

    Heck I'm lucky if either of my cars makes 100 rwhp :rlaugh: My 93' 2.3 LX is stock at 110 hp while the SVO if running right is 175hp. My 85' SVO is the older one which means minus 25hp :( Do to my cracked exhaust mainifold I loose boost a lot, sometime I get 4 psi sometimes 15psi :eek: I got enough gear to make my car around 230-250rwhp but with school going I got zero time to do it.
    #8
  9. Mach428

    Mach428 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CobraClone, how the hell did you ever manage 368rwtq??? That doesn't make sense to me. With a procharger shouldn't you hp be more then tq on a V6?
    #9
  10. GREENBIOCH

    GREENBIOCH Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would think that is because of nitrous but ??? Still nice numbers!
    #10
  11. ryanrule

    ryanrule impotent Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we have a fairly large engine, our tq can get up there
    #11
  12. Blown3.8

    Blown3.8 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    dual exhuast with 40 series flowmasters,3.73 gears and tlok,11psi procharger.

    ran 13.6@103mph with crappy 2.199 60ft.

    by the way its an auto
    #12
  13. atlblue2000

    atlblue2000 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Estimating a 13.7 with just 226 rwhp/267 rwtq?? I hope you get there, but how exactly did you "rough test" on the road??

    Also, where did you come up with an estimated 288/223 cfm @ .500" lift?? You do plan on adding some serious cubes to that 232, right?? If you don't, you can kiss most all of your bottom end goodbye with that kind of head flow and spyder intake.
    #13
  14. cobra232

    cobra232 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the heads were flow tested on a superflow f600 flow bench. the long 3.4 inch stroke of the 3.8 allows for half decent torque down low even with highly ported heads and intake. most 99 and under 4.6L v8`s dyno less than me stock but can dip into the low 13`s with practice. my g-tech pro is indicating 13.2 in the 1/4 so i give it a little error against me. it is quicker than my father-in-laws 98 stock cobra which has gone 13.6 in the quarter and dyno`d 217rwhp and 252 rwtorque. I am skeptical of cobraclone`s torque #`s. his mods don`t permit such high #`s. what was your dyno # atlblue2000?

    cubes has nothing to do with torque. torque is produced by long stroke engines. that`s why 302`s don`t develop good torque but a 347 does. the 3.8 resembles a 347 more than a 302 in bore/stroke ratio.
    #14
  15. Mach428

    Mach428 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    325
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm pretty sure there's now way Cobra clone has 423TQ at the crank, there's no possible way that thats 3.8 is makeing just as much RWTQ as an 03-04 Cobra. Where did you get your car Dynoed Cobra clone??? they must have made a mistake!?
    #15
  16. cobra232

    cobra232 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    mach428 i agree his torque #`s are to high for his mods. most heavily ported turbo`d 232`s don`t get that much torque
    #16
  17. 98CobraClone

    98CobraClone New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2003
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The car was dynoed by Don95Vert on a dyno in Columbus, OH. They aren't SAE corrected numbers.....said my HP numbers are low and my torque numbers are high since my RPM's couldn't be picked up by their machine. The car kept giving off interference through the plug wires and they couldn't sense through that so they had to go off of the rollers on the mustang dynamometer. I have the dyno sheets around here somewhere.
    #17
  18. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cobra232...who the hell is feeding you this bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me' your spouting?

    288/232 @.500...bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'. Your talking numbers that ported LS1, AFR 210CC, better than most aftermarket Ford heads get. How big are your valves, your intake cc, exhaust cc, 1/2" lip, how big a exhaust pipe, any velocity, etc...if all it took was porting some 3.8 heads out to get those numbers, every guy with ported 3.8's would be running easy 12's on motor. With a S/C or Turbo, you do not need big flow numbers to make good power and how high do you plan on spinning your motor. Why do you think guys with big flow numbers actually get 4000+ stall converters, deep gears, etc...because big flow heads have no bottom end, not to mention they shift @ 7000+. This is a fact.

    3.4" stroke, as compared to what? Small bore, big stroke motors make tq, but big bore, big stroke motors make a hell of a lot more. My Lightning has a 3.0" bore, 4.17" stroke. Put an Eaton on it and your have mountains of tq, but no rpm. Would my Lightning lose tq if I had a 4.0 bore? No, it would make so much more and also make so much more horse power that to even think that cubic inches have no bearing on tq is simply complete bull'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me'. There is no replacement for displacement.

    You can have a 5" stroke, but if you got a 4" rod vs. 6" rod, the short rod motor will make more tq than the 6" rod motor, but it changes the dynamics of the entire motor.

    And on a personal note..I see that you dynoed your car with a slipping tranny? Exactly why did you do so? I work part time at a dyno shop and see guys always showing up with something wrong...why?
    #18
  19. cobra232

    cobra232 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i did not port the heads they are morana ultimate heads with 1.86" intake and 1.60" exhaust valves. i did not flow test the heads either the flow was done by by the former owner of the heads that i bought them off of and i don`t have the flow chart but am planning on having them flow tested. actually your lightning bore is 3.55" bore. i was wrong in stating cubes has no bearing on torque but cubes doesn`t always = torque 455 buick vs 455 pontiac same cubes buick large bore short stroke 455 poncho smaller bore longer stroke than buick which makes more torque? the poncho hands down stroke and like you said rod length has more to do with torque than just cubes and i agree with you about needing high stall and steep gears on highly ported setups and not needing high flow # to make power on forced induction engines. i plan on about 6500rpm for my engine when it`s done.
    #19
  20. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did not mean to come off so harsh...but seriously, those #'s are way, way to high. Someone is lying to you or is looking at the wrong flow chart. There simply is not enough head there to flow those numbers.

    Seriously, look around and see what guys are making power wise and there flow numbers. I have a set of AFR small block chevy heads, 2.08"/1.60", 225cc I, 95cc E runner volumes, worked over and they flow 295/210 @.500...and these are big honking racing heads with lots of extra meat in them.

    I bet 288/232 is better than 4V Cobra heads..
    #20

Share This Page