Not all your superchargers are belt driven u can get twin screw and roots that are pretty much like a turbo and aren't ran off the belt. Turbo is definitely your more efficient option though only reason they say its more is for fabrication of some parts that might have to be custom made also for a really good supercharger that can always push more power if u want it to down the road is going to cost more then the turbo also check out the other thread in this section 5.0 induction help its all about turbos vs superchargers. Turbo will get u the mpgs you want though and probably over your ideal HP that your looking for
Best performance-mpg for 94 5.0
- Thread starter HollisArmstrong
- Start date
BlackVert
15 Year Member
what are you smoking? twin screw and roots blowers are also driven by the belt.
whitesqual
Active Member
KamiKaziDK
Member
whitesqual
Active Member
Guys lets not get into a pissing contest here. Good advice and questioning the theory of something is fine but no need to throw wrenches across the garage.
I have been looking into possibilities on how to pipe in a turbo for my 5.0 in the Falcon and am leaning now toward a remote located turbo. I could do twins under the back seat just over the rear end and you couldn't tell it much from under the hood plus you dont have to run an intercooler if you dont want to.
Here is a link to one company that specializes in remote located turbo's.
Squires Turbo Systems - Turbocharged Innovation!
Hollis
I have been looking into possibilities on how to pipe in a turbo for my 5.0 in the Falcon and am leaning now toward a remote located turbo. I could do twins under the back seat just over the rear end and you couldn't tell it much from under the hood plus you dont have to run an intercooler if you dont want to.
Here is a link to one company that specializes in remote located turbo's.
Squires Turbo Systems - Turbocharged Innovation!
Hollis
Those remote mounted turbos do work, but it's not the most optimal. If at all possible, you want to keep it under the hood, especially for a daily driver. If it's way in the back of the car, you run the risk of cold soaking the turbo if you go over a puddle. You also run the risk of sucking up water or a high amount of debris into the air filter. Also, turbos run off heat, which is greatly dissapated by the time the exhaust stream gets that far back in the vehicle.
Kurt
Kurt
Have you considered flipping the headers upside down and running forward mounted turbos?
Twin Turbo How-To
I have thought of that but there is just very little room in the Falcon. It is the same width at the frame rails as a Mustang but the inner fender wells are about 3-4 inches narrower at the top and they have a straight slant from the bottom to the top vs the straight over and then slant of the Mustang fender well. I have removed the strut towers so the headers even though tight it would fit. The concern is the location of the turbo itself plus the cross over pipe and everything would really fill up the small engine bay. The next major concern is the intercooler. The Falcon front end just doesnt have much room for the intercooler and it plumbing. This is why I was considering the remote located turbo. I dont really have to have that much HP because a stock 5.0 in the Falcon will be pretty zippy as is but I would LIKE to have that extra kick if I ever needed it.
Hollis
Hollis
BlackVert
15 Year Member
nmcgrawj
Advanced Member
Look at the turbo placement for 4.6 dohc stangs. I can't imagine them having much more room to work with?
Also, u can get around the headaches Kurt mentioned. Proper shielding/baffling will help. If u don't need an intercooler, think of how much the exhaust cools down before the turbo.
But, if it makes the power you need, then so what. Is it the most efficient? Nope. Does it work? Yea.
Are u happy? -> nothing else matters.
Also, u can get around the headaches Kurt mentioned. Proper shielding/baffling will help. If u don't need an intercooler, think of how much the exhaust cools down before the turbo.
But, if it makes the power you need, then so what. Is it the most efficient? Nope. Does it work? Yea.
Are u happy? -> nothing else matters.
Gotcha. Well there is no question that remote mount works. I've worked with plenty of F bodies and vettes that use remote mounted systems.
You'll hear rumors about lack of power and lag. Don't believe it.
Thanks BlackVert for the link. It does encourage me to see someone build what I want to build and have success and be impressed with the end result. His project definately gave me some new ideas and some things to look out for.
I appreciate you following my thread and giving good advice.
Hollis
I appreciate you following my thread and giving good advice.
Hollis
2cents
This is an interesting thread. I will chime in.
Turbo + 5.0 is pretty awsome. Its also a lot more work and headache then many make it sound like.
To me, there are a few parts to the equation when talking about power and MPG. You have a light car, so thats a plus. As mentioned earlier, a really "economic" gear ratio is a pretty big factor. Altering the OD in your auto is probably difficult, but altering the rear end isnt. So, put a low gear in the back, like some 2.73 or something.
ONOZ!! Someone will say, because thats taboo when talking about going fast right? Maybe, but consider... your car is really light, and you arent talking about a drag radial trailor queen car. How do you make 2.73 fast? Huge power, or better yet, huge ft/lb.
So what makes huge ft/lb? A 5.0 with a kenne bell. In fact depending on your set up it can make so much power you will have traction issues during normal driving.
I just thought I would throw that out there. I mean a kenne bell is one of the easiest/least intrusive set ups you can do on a 5.0. The power is there right away, and can overcome the negatives of a low rear end to a point. If you keep out of the boost(under about 2600-2800 rpm- easier with a low rear end) you should see mid twenties easy for mpg, more with a good tune.
There is one consideration though, KB doesnt make a blower inlet for anything but stock 5.0 GT or cobra manifolds. So aftermarket lower intakes dont work. On the plus side, a gt40 lower from an explorer is like 40 dollars on ebay. It will work plenty well enough. If you do the rebuild on the engine and put in a stout bottom end, all you will need is bigger injectors and a pully to make even more power( and a tune)
This is an interesting thread. I will chime in.
Turbo + 5.0 is pretty awsome. Its also a lot more work and headache then many make it sound like.
To me, there are a few parts to the equation when talking about power and MPG. You have a light car, so thats a plus. As mentioned earlier, a really "economic" gear ratio is a pretty big factor. Altering the OD in your auto is probably difficult, but altering the rear end isnt. So, put a low gear in the back, like some 2.73 or something.
ONOZ!! Someone will say, because thats taboo when talking about going fast right? Maybe, but consider... your car is really light, and you arent talking about a drag radial trailor queen car. How do you make 2.73 fast? Huge power, or better yet, huge ft/lb.
So what makes huge ft/lb? A 5.0 with a kenne bell. In fact depending on your set up it can make so much power you will have traction issues during normal driving.
I just thought I would throw that out there. I mean a kenne bell is one of the easiest/least intrusive set ups you can do on a 5.0. The power is there right away, and can overcome the negatives of a low rear end to a point. If you keep out of the boost(under about 2600-2800 rpm- easier with a low rear end) you should see mid twenties easy for mpg, more with a good tune.
There is one consideration though, KB doesnt make a blower inlet for anything but stock 5.0 GT or cobra manifolds. So aftermarket lower intakes dont work. On the plus side, a gt40 lower from an explorer is like 40 dollars on ebay. It will work plenty well enough. If you do the rebuild on the engine and put in a stout bottom end, all you will need is bigger injectors and a pully to make even more power( and a tune)
Thanks 94 GT.
It has been a while since I have been on here. I have been working on the body and frame. Im in the middle of doing a mini tub at the moment. Have to have some meat back there. Plus I have to beaf up the frame rails some for the added horse power and torque. Also since I have added the Mustang fire wall and floor pans along with the frame rails from the Mustang I have to get all of that attached real good to the Falcon frame rails and what little is left of the floor pans. In addition to all of that i have to beef up the rear part of the frame rails where the springs attach to make sure my rear end will stay in place when I get traction.
I have been doing lots of research and learning loads of stuff on turbo charging the 5.0. I know that anything real close to 500 or more horses will probably not hold to well with the 5.0 so I am aiming for right around 450 HP. I think I can easily do this with a STS twin turbo remote mounted system. I plan to use small turbos for faster spooling since I do have the OD in the tranny and probably will never red line on anything except for a 1/8 mile and maybe an occasional 1/4 mile track.
We have a local 1/8 mile track only five miles from the house so if I race it any at all it will probably be there. I might just for giggles go to birmingham to a 1/4 miler just to see for sure what it will do.
I have plans at the moment to go with a 3:73 gear but may drop that to a 3:55 rear gear for the mileage sake. I have thought of the GT40 heads and intake but not sure if they are crucial in the build for what I am aiming at. Maybe? To be determined later when I get closer to that point.
Right now I am still working on the body, frame, and suspension. Once I get all of that done I will start to work on dash, electrical, heater/air conditioning, steering wheel and so on. Then it will be off to work on the interior. I am saving the high cost items of engine, tranny, and so on (turbo) for later when I can save up the money. I am however planning ahead so that these things will be a bolt in once I get there.
I am currently working out the details to make a raised box like configuration between the gas tank and the rear dash so that it can be opened up from the inside. It will have 1 x 1 inch angle iron with a sheet metal skin and a drop down hinged door that will be facing the rear (into the trunck area) so I can drop it down to work on the turbos if needed. Dont know if you can picture that yet? This will also give me more room under the car above the rear axle to mount the turbos. The angle iron should also provide some stable mounting area for me to attach the turbos to once Im ready for them to go in.
Will keep you all posted.
thanks for all the input and the following in my build.
Hollis
It has been a while since I have been on here. I have been working on the body and frame. Im in the middle of doing a mini tub at the moment. Have to have some meat back there. Plus I have to beaf up the frame rails some for the added horse power and torque. Also since I have added the Mustang fire wall and floor pans along with the frame rails from the Mustang I have to get all of that attached real good to the Falcon frame rails and what little is left of the floor pans. In addition to all of that i have to beef up the rear part of the frame rails where the springs attach to make sure my rear end will stay in place when I get traction.
I have been doing lots of research and learning loads of stuff on turbo charging the 5.0. I know that anything real close to 500 or more horses will probably not hold to well with the 5.0 so I am aiming for right around 450 HP. I think I can easily do this with a STS twin turbo remote mounted system. I plan to use small turbos for faster spooling since I do have the OD in the tranny and probably will never red line on anything except for a 1/8 mile and maybe an occasional 1/4 mile track.
We have a local 1/8 mile track only five miles from the house so if I race it any at all it will probably be there. I might just for giggles go to birmingham to a 1/4 miler just to see for sure what it will do.
I have plans at the moment to go with a 3:73 gear but may drop that to a 3:55 rear gear for the mileage sake. I have thought of the GT40 heads and intake but not sure if they are crucial in the build for what I am aiming at. Maybe? To be determined later when I get closer to that point.
Right now I am still working on the body, frame, and suspension. Once I get all of that done I will start to work on dash, electrical, heater/air conditioning, steering wheel and so on. Then it will be off to work on the interior. I am saving the high cost items of engine, tranny, and so on (turbo) for later when I can save up the money. I am however planning ahead so that these things will be a bolt in once I get there.
I am currently working out the details to make a raised box like configuration between the gas tank and the rear dash so that it can be opened up from the inside. It will have 1 x 1 inch angle iron with a sheet metal skin and a drop down hinged door that will be facing the rear (into the trunck area) so I can drop it down to work on the turbos if needed. Dont know if you can picture that yet? This will also give me more room under the car above the rear axle to mount the turbos. The angle iron should also provide some stable mounting area for me to attach the turbos to once Im ready for them to go in.
Will keep you all posted.
thanks for all the input and the following in my build.
Hollis
sn-95matt5-0
Member
- Nov 6, 2006
- 170
- 0
- 16
I live in Moulton Alabama so I am only a few miles from Jakes Dragstrip. It is an old track and have not been there in many years. It is under new management starting this year so I am curious to how the track is and if it has been updated.
Welcome to Jakes Dragstrip
Hollis
Welcome to Jakes Dragstrip
Hollis
BlackVert
15 Year Member
You probably already know this, but just in case ...
The motor mount points for a 351 windsor are the same as a 302, which means it is very easy to strap in a 351 where a 302 used to be. The main things the 351 gets you are: (1) more torque from the get go, (2) the ability to stroke it up to 427 cubes, and (3) a stronger block capable of supporting up to 750 horses.
Of course going from a 302 to a 351 requires other changes, but you seem like the sort of guy who is not afraid of fabricating stuff and making it work ...
So if you are going to a 302 form something else already, then you might consider going to a 351 instead.
Just a thought.
The motor mount points for a 351 windsor are the same as a 302, which means it is very easy to strap in a 351 where a 302 used to be. The main things the 351 gets you are: (1) more torque from the get go, (2) the ability to stroke it up to 427 cubes, and (3) a stronger block capable of supporting up to 750 horses.
Of course going from a 302 to a 351 requires other changes, but you seem like the sort of guy who is not afraid of fabricating stuff and making it work ...
So if you are going to a 302 form something else already, then you might consider going to a 351 instead.
Just a thought.
Thanks Black Vert,
Yes I know a little about the 351. My best friend from high school is a huge fan of the 351 Cleavland engine. He has owned several Torinos and a 70 or 71 Mach I. He currently has a whole 351 Cleavland engine for $250 that he has left over. The little Falcon should scoot pretty good with the 5.0 and by adding the turbos it should be hard to beat in daily street driving which is really all I have a desire for. I am too old to fight to be the king of the hill. I just dont want to be pushed around by a juiced four banger lol.
This is the first time I have ever taken on such a task. Its my first retoration and I am learning much along the way. One day I may do just what you are talking about. I love the old F100's with the high rise hoods and agressive bumper/grill so the 351 might be in the plans for a project such as that one day.
I hope to have a fleet of 60's Fords one day in the driveway. I would love to get the wife a 64-65 Falcon convertable, me a early 60's Fairlane or Galaxie, a 60's Econoline Pick-up, 60's Falcon Wagon, a early 60's Thunderbird, and a Maverick Grabber.
Maybe one day I can have some or even all? That is if the good Lord taries long enough and he continues to bless me with the health and desire.
Hollis
Yes I know a little about the 351. My best friend from high school is a huge fan of the 351 Cleavland engine. He has owned several Torinos and a 70 or 71 Mach I. He currently has a whole 351 Cleavland engine for $250 that he has left over. The little Falcon should scoot pretty good with the 5.0 and by adding the turbos it should be hard to beat in daily street driving which is really all I have a desire for. I am too old to fight to be the king of the hill. I just dont want to be pushed around by a juiced four banger lol.
This is the first time I have ever taken on such a task. Its my first retoration and I am learning much along the way. One day I may do just what you are talking about. I love the old F100's with the high rise hoods and agressive bumper/grill so the 351 might be in the plans for a project such as that one day.
I hope to have a fleet of 60's Fords one day in the driveway. I would love to get the wife a 64-65 Falcon convertable, me a early 60's Fairlane or Galaxie, a 60's Econoline Pick-up, 60's Falcon Wagon, a early 60's Thunderbird, and a Maverick Grabber.
Maybe one day I can have some or even all? That is if the good Lord taries long enough and he continues to bless me with the health and desire.
Hollis
Similar threads
