School us on engines...

Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by GDawg, Dec 23, 2006.

  1. well to you i apologize.

    but my point is simple. i can go for peaky all out hp just as well as anyone else. for my motor with heads and the rest of the required combo. a 285adv intake and 304 adv exhaust cam with .500/.550 lift and 116.5 seperation dialed at 0 degrees advance produces a peak at 7200 with a good average torque and a few average hp(~10) over advancing it 5 degrees and losing peak hp numbers. on a sim of course. i will personally take the average torque and shift it early to gain up until the two hp curves swap. the small rpm advantage and peak hp advantage is nearly useless. 700 extra rpm and a handful of hp is not worth losing so much area up until they cross.

    for example. a short runner intake on a 96 cobra makes 20 peak hp more than the stocker at 6200. but it losses 20 lb-ft until 5500. that's a better illustration of my philiosphy rather than the extremism examples laid out by others.
  2. I don't know which 1968 you are talking about, but in the 1968 that occured here on Earth, the Hemi 426 cars, namely the Barricuda and the Dart, DOMINATED the 60's. The 426 Hemi that was put into the Cuda and Dart was rated at 425 HP, but in reality in made over 600 HP. The 428 Cobra Jet was rated at 335 HP and in reality it made closer to 400.

    Do yourself a favor, and pick up some books written about the NHRA Super Stock class at your local bookstore. Larry Davis and Jim Schilds both have some excellent info in their books. I have read a few of them.
  3. I have read most of this thread... Bill, the day you know it all is the day you become ignorant. You have working knowledge. By that I mean, you may have stumbled onto something that worked in your specific situation but it may not be the best way to do it. Sure, I can go pull my heads off my stang and do a P&P but is it going to make power? It might or it might not. Now, if I take a more scientific approach and consider what I want using volume, velocity, ect., my power numbers are going to be exponentially higher. I think it is time to step back and learn something new...... And by the way, I am not much younger than you and I know quite a bit myself but if anyone has sound, sensible information, I'm going to view it with an open mind.

    just my .02 from this book of a thread,

    that is the winner of many 1968 ss races.

    With 11.5-second ETs at 120 mph, the factory team of eight specially prepared 1968 Ford Mustang 428 CJs obliterated everything in their Super Stock class at the '68 NHRA Winternationals. The impact was no less forceful on the street. "The entire world will come to recognize this engine-the 428 Cobra Jet-at the pop of a hood," declared Motor Trend. Finally, thanks to the 1968 Ford Mustang 428 Cobra Jet, the competition was chasing Mustang's tail.

    this is just another example of your inability to face reality. you are wrong wrong wrong again.
  5. You are right, what are the Pro Stock, Pro Mod, NASCAR, F1, Indy guys thinking shifting over 5225 RPM's. :bang:

    BTW, why are you running advertised duration numbers on a software sim?? Advertised duration numbers are measured at .006" off the seat and are worthless for comparision or for estimating a power curve. You need to use duration measured at .050" off the seat.
  6. i never said i was running advertised. i just don't want to give away my exact cams. again you think you are telling me something.

    advertised numbers can be from .002 to .006 depending on manufacturer.
  8. You talk like you dropped a few grand for some secret torque monster custom grind. You will tell people that you have a 5.4L engine but not what cams you have. Thats rediculous. That would be like me saying, Hey, I have a turbo, Drag slicks, and can do over 180mph, but I cant tell you what size injectors I have because I fear that divulging that information alone will enable you to build a superior car to mine, then hunt me down and race me thus making me feel like an idiot for telling you my injector size.

    Bill Fisher,
    Please dont try and take this on further for the sake of your own pride.
    As for your age comment, I must say this:
    First, by the way you conduct yourself, I believe you are not 41.
    Second, age has NOTHING to do with skill, knowledge, experience, or natural tallent. And to throw out a blanket insult to all people who are trying to help you learn is very childish. As were your comments to me when I was discussing the 5.4L swap and how it really isn't as hard as people believe.

    I think most of your information is biased to your setup on your car. This shows you take great pride in your work and have a good amount of knowledge about it. But acting like your accomplishments make you better than everyone else is wrong. Many people on this website and others have done some cool stuff on their own. Personally, I have a thing we call the death kart which is a turbocharged 8.0L V10 powered formula 3 car with no brakes yet (hence the name). Though I believe it to be origional, and pretty darned ingenious, I don't think it makes me better than anyone on here. No one knows everything, and even a lively arguement with other users should be used as a chance to learn.

    I have run my own performance shop for 5 years now. I like to think I know my stuff. But every time I post something up here, or read another user's post, I come out knowing something new, or at least looking at an old problem in a new way.

    It's ok to not know everything, and it's ok to ask for help
  9. talk about putting words into someone's mouth.

    originally i stated my opinions and they werer challenged not by other ideas, but by questioning my qualifications to have a different opinion. that is what started this. to point to me after that is ????. there are enough posts to counter my opinions in here to give me the right to defend them. and i am not the one that started the age thing. so i really don't want to hear that either. what does my accomplishments have to do with anything. nothing. my swap is simply an extension of my philosophy. yours is yours. it can all be right and work well with the right chasis , etc.

    so let me have my opinion without challenging my right to have it and we all get along.
  10. Do you have any pictures of this 5.4 swap? I think we would all like to see it.
  11. I honestly didn't understand any of that.

    It is your right to have an opinion. Hovewer, the purpose of this site is to gain knowledge by discussing things with other people. You came on and made the statement the Torque was the deciding factor when it comes to determining what engine will yeild a faster car. This was your opinion. Others responded with their opinions, some with more supporting information than others and you simply said "you're wrong" to all of them. If you want to state your opinions here and simply have everyone agree with you then what is the point of this forum?

    I believe it have been proven time and again that torque is only part of what determines what car will be faster. Power, also defined as Work, is what makes things move. And that is a scientific fact.

    Sure you can make a low RPM engine with lots of torque go fast with a proper gearing setup. However, the one major flaw with that is your RPM window where you make good torque is very small. The only exception would be a diesel. But unlike your gas motor, a diesel makes insane torque from idle to redline.

  12. Sure! as soon as the motor starts going in. Its getting put together right now. If you look at my sig you will see that I just made room for it today:D

    That and I'm still $3K short on what I need to finish... So I will have to start busting some arse.

    Hopefully I'll have some pix of the turbo setup on the motor in a few weeks.

  13. i simply disagree with the GM philosophy. big ports and cubes to make up for it. instead of smaller higher efficiency high torque ports with smaller cubes. i guess it seems to me like they are overkilling it. even when i have built high HP chevy's it was done with a torque approach with small cubes instead of a rat. of course the rat is faster, but i hate the approach. 350 cubes is more than enough to make serious HP with the right combo. instead they compromise that and go with the overkill. why use 6.0L instead of 5.3 when the 5.3 can do the job. it's like a low tech approach. they can't make HP with reasonable motors so they make them 7.0L.

    i simply don't like that even if it does make more HP. i used my 5.4 as an example of torque from 34 less cubes , but all of the 5.4 3v and 4v guys are making more than me with more mods.

    ford has changed to the GM and mopar philosophy now. the BOSS 5.8/6.2 is a step backwards in that sense.

    swapping to the 5.4 is simple if the person has skills. building them is the same. no real mysteries. i have tried to convince others to try it with little success. my cam specs are mine. i will be competing so they are mine. you feel that is rediculous then that's your poke at me. enjoy.

    one thing i have noted watching this my whole adult life is that engine technology reaches a point where added gizmos won't improve HP so cubes are the only way. i really don't feel like ford has to go big cubes but they are.

    surely a set of FORD GT heads on a 330 could do the job.
  14. the pictures of the swap are in here under my username. try a search.

    i believe the pics of my porting the upper and TB are in here too.
  15. rickey that comment was posted to one individual not everyone. it should have read "you are completely wrong".

    iknow torque is one component.
  16. Here's a good article on the 426 Hemi vs. the Viper V-10, granted it's in a Belvedere but the rated HP is the same. I have more dyno's on the 426 Hemi if anyone want's to see them.
  17. C_S that was awesome. now that is good info. it puts a perspective on what we are all here for. BIG hp. to exceed a hemi will be cool. goos numbers to shooy for. and the viper... maybe hp but it's torque is out of reach for me.
  18. Sorry to hear about your engine letting go :( .
    So judging from gained around 40RWHP from 8PSI? Your car should be making WELL over 500RWHP with 17PSI....thats telling me that your turbo is reaching its limit (unless the tune had no timing and a TON of fuel in it...but then again you could get 50X RWHP from much less boost with the right tune).

    But id like to hear the whole story before I jump to conclusions haha. Again, sorry to hear that :nonono:
  19. I appreciate the link, but don't put much faith in magazine articles. If they truly only got 315 to the tire (which I know they didn't) on a 426 Hemi Powered Belvedere that only says one thing, that motor was very tired and/or the Viper owner stuffed a rag in the intake of the Belvedere. Also they mentioned that the owner of the Plymouth Belvedere had swapped the solid lifter(mechanical) camshaft and lifters to hydraulic. The owner obviously did that for durability only, as switching from a solid lifter cam to a hydraulic cam and hydraulic lifters will prove to show a significant decrease in power. The Hemi heads and the solid lifter cam and lifters worked together to make the Hemi's power.

    On a hydraulic valvetrain the the lifter depends on a "hydraulic" pump-up effect to transfer the mechanical energy from the camshaft to the pushrod via the hydraulic lifter. In doing this, the overall lift of the lobe is slightly "absorbed" by the hydraulic lifter and the net lift at the valve is effectively less than the potential of the camshaft lobe (tappet lift). The obvious difference on a solid roller setup is the fact that the lifter is solid. So less effective lift is "absorbed", and thus you have a more accurate valvetrain that will net you more overall lift and a slightly increased duration, thus making more power.

    Another thing to note is, that since a solid roller cam will be harder on the valve train, the very first part of the opening ramp on a solid lifter camshaft is ground to be slightly slower so that the valve is not "hammered" off the seat. The overall ramp rate after that is significantly faster than that of a hydraulic cam. This is another reason that contributes to the longer intake valve event and more power over hydraulic.

    I had to go to one of the Jeg's Engine Masters Challenges a while back (2004 I think). I think it was one of the big wigs from PRI, but he had a bone stock original 426" Hemi out of a production (not race or Super Stock) Hemi Cuda. The motor put 572 HP on the engine dyno. It was said that the 426" Hemi's that were available in the SS Chrysler cars for the old SS classses, were making well over 600HP at the crank. Awesome motor.