Interesting info on the 4.0

J

Jimp

New Member

Apr 9, 2005

486

0

0

Aug 14, 2005

#1

• Aug 14, 2005

• #1

http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/pdf/40SOHCTech.pdf

 

Z

Zodiac

New Member

Dec 17, 2004

247

0

0

Aug 14, 2005

#2

• Aug 14, 2005

• #2

Very interesting indeed... ive been waiting months to see some of this info. With the right work and effort into the engine, it looks like it could end up having alot of potential.

Anyone else getting turned on at the menion of the cams they're working on?

 

Z

Zodiac

New Member

Dec 17, 2004

247

0

0

Aug 14, 2005

#3

• Aug 14, 2005

• #3

It also mentions that MAC has long tube headers out, as well as a prochamber.. I cant find any info on macperformance.com .. anyone have any info on it? Sending them an email again right now..

 

Chris_NY

New Member

Jun 9, 2005

48

0

0

Aug 14, 2005

#4

• Aug 14, 2005

• #4

Reading that gives me a pretty grim outlook on the idea of adding any kind of power adder. It says they will be prone to blowing head gaskets and the compression is way too high to take even modest amounts of boost safely.

Meaning that it would mean changing the Pistons.. Says the decks are not built good .. It says better head gaskets would be needed. It says the pistons pretty much suck and suggests better ones...It suggests if going into the 350hp area that rod bolts need replaced .. (even a modest boost situation will put you at or in this ballpark)

There is no way your bolting on a SC safely without many pricey engine mods. To do it right would mean putting as much money into the engine as the SC in order to get a safe reliable setup.

Originally I was considering waiting on the procharger setup to come out but perhaps that was a pipe dream from reading this.

Though you have to take into consideration that the person who wrote that article is in the buisiness to sell parts and they want you to think things need to be changed so that they can sell you their stuff. So it might not be a good idea to hold too much stock in a tech article put out by a company that sells performance parts. It might be best to wait for an impartial person or company to put out their take on the engine. IMO

 

fazm83

New Member

Apr 8, 2005

747

0

0

phoenix, arizona

Aug 14, 2005

#5

• Aug 14, 2005

• #5

powerhouse's v6 mustang is puttin around 270rwhp on a mustang dyno, which is over 300hp on a dynojet, which is equivlanet to 350+hp at the flywheel. They havent replaced any engine internals yet.

 

J

Jimp

New Member

Apr 9, 2005

486

0

0

Aug 14, 2005

#6

• Aug 14, 2005

• #6

Sounds like nitrous is the safest way to go right now. As long as you keep it at 75 or 125 that is.

 

M

MSP

Aug 14, 2005

#7

• Aug 14, 2005

• #7

Jimp said:

http://www.supersixmotorsports.com/pdf/40SOHCTech.pdf

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ jimp!! Back to the drawing board man!! LOL!! WOW! It looks like we have alot of work to do.. I need to contemplate this very valuable info you have shared with us.. We may have to start from the bottom up.. It appears Ford was well aware of the potential of the motor as a threat to the 4.6 engine, and took some xtra steps to make sure only the true and commited get to the other side of the christmas tree first..

Well, looks like we all need to focus in on what mods are really actually next.. This is a bummer to me in the short term, because the goal has always been to add alittle and gain alot.. This pretty much shuts this down..

However, since we havent had reports of blown head gaskets yet, lets not jump to conclusions to far just yet..

I would like to add, it appears our setup is actually better for a nitrous application for all in the short term.. We will all be happy at or below 350HP.. I believe the Nitrous kit needs to be done, to get a feel for what that power can feel like.. Lets discuss this guys.. The article says our pistons structure is suited best for nitrous.. So in the short term, we need to use this to our advantage.. We need to find links to the Piston kit, and talk about what to do about these swiss cheese heads we all have.. Lets talk guys!!

I must add that this block is no threat to the 4.6 engine.. But Ford wanted to contain the 4.0 from an easy SC situation.. Which could challenge a N/A 4.6..

 

M

MSP

Aug 15, 2005

#8

• Aug 15, 2005

• #8

On further contemplation, isn't our goal 300RWHP? If so, then we should just proceed as planned.. We shoot for 350HP @ the flywheel, that puts us at 305RWHP safely.. So lets shoot for that, and upgrade whatever is needed later, should we decide we need more.. Personally, I wont desire anymore.


So after further thought there is no immidiate problems or issues in the way of our original goals which have been presented in this PDF.. It basically substantiates what we have been saying all along..

Also, with 305RWHP, the T-LOK rearend would be a great investment to get the power to the ground evenly..

 

Chris_NY

New Member

Jun 9, 2005

48

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#9

• Aug 15, 2005

• #9

I don't think you are getting the jist of that article ..

The jist of the article .. or what the author was trying to get accross..

(If you believe him .. by the way I don't totally buy all of what they say)

But if you believe what is being said .. they are telling you that you that the car stock will not take well to even a modest power adding situation such as an 8psi boost be it SC or TC.

What the author is saying isn't wrong by any means and if you want your car to run and not have it in the shop all the time perhaps taking their advice is a good idea. But they are giving that advice based on the fact that they make parts to replace the ones they feel are bad. So what I am saying is that they are probably overstating the problems that they found to make them seem more serious then they are so you run out and perhaps buy their parts.

Moral of the story is that author is trying to say .. You can't get to 300rwhp unless you do engine work.

 

rygenstormlocke

former 10 second badass

Aug 13, 2005

698

0

0

Northern Virginia

Aug 15, 2005

#10

• Aug 15, 2005

• #10

Thats a good point, but I am going to take the word of someone who knows engines....and isn't selling any parts/products.

 

Chris_NY

New Member

Jun 9, 2005

48

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#11

• Aug 15, 2005

• #11

rygenstormlocke said:

Thats a good point, but I am going to take the word of someone who knows engines....and isn't selling any parts/products.

Click to expand...

My point exactly !

 

scrming

New Member

Aug 9, 2005

476

2

0

Aug 15, 2005

#12

• Aug 15, 2005

• #12

MSP said:

On further contemplation, isn't our goal 300RWHP? If so, then we should just proceed as planned.. We shoot for 350HP @ the flywheel, that puts us at 305RWHP safely.. So lets shoot for that, and upgrade whatever is needed later, should we decide we need more.. Personally, I wont desire anymore.


So after further thought there is no immidiate problems or issues in the way of our original goals which have been presented in this PDF.. It basically substantiates what we have been saying all along..

Also, with 305RWHP, the T-LOK rearend would be a great investment to get the power to the ground evenly..

Click to expand...

Even with out the 300RWHP the T-LOK was a great investment for me with my little mods! At 200RWHP I've noticed a dramatic difference in performance! I had the T-Lok installed last week... I shot through a right hand turn at an intersection so dang fast since BOTH wheels GRABBED I about wet my pants!!!!

 

M

MSP

Aug 15, 2005

#13

• Aug 15, 2005

• #13

scrming said:

Even with out the 300RWHP the T-LOK was a great investment for me with my little mods! At 200RWHP I've noticed a dramatic difference in performance! I had the T-Lok installed last week... I shot through a right hand turn at an intersection so dang fast since BOTH wheels GRABBED I about wet my pants!!!!

Click to expand...

Nice job man!! How much for the rear-end? Also, what were you charged to get it installed? Also, since your part of the club, can you create your own thread, and give a brief discription of your car, the new T-LOK rear-end, gears, and new 0-60 and 1/4 mile time? Also, include pics of the new rearend installed.. Thanks man.. Thats going to be a very popular thread..

@ALL

Man, I never thought when I bought a V6, I would meet so many kool people, who think like me.. LOL!! We got a good crew of guys with V6's here.. I am kinda proud!!

@ChrisNy

I hear what your saying.. I have just always felt, that I need to blow a head gasket first, before I allow someone to dictate to me what I should do with my car..

Also, 8PSI of boost, would yield well more than 300RWHP.. I think 6PSI should do it, as long as other mods had been performed, and a Tune is completed.. I am quite sure we can do it ChrisNy.. Lets continue our research though..

scrming

Make sure your thread is 2005 V6 Mustang T-LOK rear-end upgrade.. Or something similar..

 

fazm83

New Member

Apr 8, 2005

747

0

0

phoenix, arizona

Aug 15, 2005

#14

• Aug 15, 2005

• #14

General rule of thumb 8psi = 50% increase. so 210 would become 315 assuming the engine isnt underrated (which it is) and no other mods were done. 8psi with tune, intake, exhaust, should yield in the 340-350 area. This isnt always the case, because air temp has a big effect, whether or not its intercooled, etc. just for close guestimates.

 

Z

Zodiac

New Member

Dec 17, 2004

247

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#15

• Aug 15, 2005

• #15

scrming... find my unoffical mods list and post there.. i wanna keep that thing up to date for all us strong addicts

 

Philstang

New Member

Oct 28, 2004

203

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#16

• Aug 15, 2005

• #16

It shouldn't be a huge surprise that all the stock parts can't handle a lot of boost. Stronger, fortified parts would have cost Ford alot more $$$ for such a high volume car... while the "average" owner doesn't have boost in mind.

With that said, A house is nothing without a strong foundation. Just slapping a 12lb of boost supercharger on a stock bottom end '05 is just asking for boom. If you build it, the power will come, lol.

 

Z

Zodiac

New Member

Dec 17, 2004

247

0

0

Aug 15, 2005

#17

• Aug 15, 2005

• #17

One of these days, I dream of a factory option from Ford.. they can call it the "Im an adrenalin junkie but cant afford a GT or insurance right now" package. It comes with forged internals.

 

Jenns01TA

Active Member

Mar 31, 2005

37

0

36

Aug 16, 2005

#18

• Aug 16, 2005

• #18

Jimp, Zodiac & MSP, I hope you guys are all doing good. Still need to read all this to catch up.

Jennifer

 

LIZARDKING

Active Member

Nov 16, 2004

21

14

28

Hell

Aug 16, 2005

#19

• Aug 16, 2005

• #19

4.0 SOHCs have been around for a long time. Dont believe everything you read. Also, how many peeps will actually SC thier 4.0? Maybe 12-24 a year? There just isnt the market out there.

 

J

Jimp

New Member

Apr 9, 2005

486

0

0

Aug 16, 2005

#20

• Aug 16, 2005

• #20

Jenns05Stang said:

Jimp, Zodiac & MSP, I hope you guys are all doing good. Still need to read all this to catch up.

Jennifer

Click to expand...

Hey sexy! Oh wait, gotta stay on topic....how's your 4.0?