>>> Kenne Bell 2V twinscrew SC is here!!!!!

JM01 · Aug 14, 2003

Kurgan said:
Man that's awesome. Sounds like you love it. I could understand why.

P.S. OH NO, as I speak, TJM01 is reading this! Are you going to buy one now Tom?

Guess not....he has a bigger one

Edit: Tom already replied

kirkyg · Aug 14, 2003

TJM01 said:
Kurgan - No I'm moving up to bigger more PITA things.

Chad knows what I'm talking about.

I do too

WHEN ARE WE GONNA GET SOME MORE PICS AND DYNOS DYNOS AND PICS????

kirkyg

Lord Warlock · Aug 14, 2003

subscribing. Hoping this SC setup can bring the stang into the power category that my stealth twin turbo is in. I'm hoping to sell the stealth to afford a KB SC kit.

Lord Warlock

ttbit · Aug 14, 2003

Lord Warlock said:
subscribing. Hoping this SC setup can bring the stang into the power category that my stealth twin turbo is in. I'm hoping to sell the stealth to afford a KB SC kit.

Lord Warlock

I had a VR4 and went to a '95 Mustang, so I know where you are coming from. My background is with Stangs though. I slapped a Kenne Bell and some heads on my 302 and I think that will do the trick. The cool thing is, you don't have any boost lag, so going into corners is very predictable and with all that low-end torque very adjustable. If I had the 4.6, I would strongly consider the Kenne Bell myself, to make up for low-end torque loss. Crap...I don't want to go off subject, but I am curious what your 1/4 and 1/8 times are. Email me if you would like to share the info.

I am really wanting to see the dyno numbers on this KB setup!

kirkyg · Aug 14, 2003

speak for yourself...my car has plenty of low end torque.

kirkyg

Steeda Cheeta · Aug 14, 2003

kirkyg said:
speak for yourself...my car has plenty of low end torque.

kirkyg

So does mine, enough to pull stock 302's easily all through the power band. Now you throw some heads on a 302 , that's different. Just like if you port the PI heads.
Bottom line, the 302's feel stronger down low, because they are weaker up top.

Lord Warlock · Aug 14, 2003

Without getting too far off topic here. The TT has no torque down low, but would totally embarass my 00 stang, which also has no off the line torque to speak of (with the new 275 Nittos, it hardly spins the tires). If the KB supercharger can bring the stang into the low 13s to mid 12s it would satisfy my need for speed. I've been waiting to hear about the KB unit since I got the stang.
My old 82 GLX 5.0 had more grunt down low than the 4.6 has, but it didn't like winding that high either with stock gears. I'm interested in this eval of the KB because I haven't upgraded gears yet either, was planning on 373s but wouldn't mind keeping the stock ones if the SC added enough grunt power to the mix.

This is my 3rd Mustang, (1966 conv v8 4spd, 82 5.0 GLX, 00 GT) and was purchased to get me by until the 05 cobra comes out. But if the KB SC works out well, it may be able to stick around a bit longer, I'd prefer to get an 05 cobra used.

Lord Warlock

ttbit · Aug 14, 2003

kirkyg said:
speak for yourself...my car has plenty of low end torque.

kirkyg

Torque needs are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I have driven stock GTs, and they didn't have enough for me. My friend's Bullitt feels much better. Understand, I wasn't looking for a grocery-getter when I bought my GT. That's what my 302 Ranger is for. I am so used to having plenty of torque, I can't go with less. Now, someone who has been driving a Civic for years would get in a stock 4.6 stang from any year and it would take a while for them to get used to all that torque.

It's all what you are used to. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

ttbit · Aug 14, 2003

Steeda Cheeta said:
Bottom line, the 302's feel stronger down low, because they are weaker up top.

302's feel stronger down low because they are stronger down low. I won't argue that the lastest 4.6s are stronger up top than a stock 5.0, because they are. I also won't argue that the latest 4.6 Stangs are faster than the stock old 5.0s, as most of the ones I have seen are. Why do you think I installed a set of heads and a SC?

kirkyg · Aug 14, 2003

ttbit said:
302's feel stronger down low because they are stronger down low. I won't argue that the lastest 4.6s are stronger up top than a stock 5.0, because they are. I also won't argue that the latest 4.6 Stangs are faster than the stock old 5.0s, as most of the ones I have seen are. Why do you think I installed a set of heads and a SC?

How do you figure they have so much torque? lol

94-95 5.0L is rated at 205 hp / 275 ft/lbs of torque that is none other than pitiful . I love the 5.0s dont get in a pissing match over this its not the point. They are not torque monsters from the factory. A 4.6L has better designed heads all the way around and pulls from the line to redline better than a 5.0 stock. Now take those bigger cubes and get some good heads and you have a sweet setup.

BTW, i do take offense to the grocery getter comment...i drive a mustang because i want a sports car (coupe) that fulfills all my acceleration needs not my grocery getting needs. I would buy a mini-van or a saturn if i wanted to get groceries.

kirkyg

Steeda Cheeta · Aug 15, 2003

ttbit said:
302's feel stronger down low because they are stronger down low. I won't argue that the lastest 4.6s are stronger up top than a stock 5.0, because they are. I also won't argue that the latest 4.6 Stangs are faster than the stock old 5.0s, as most of the ones I have seen are. Why do you think I installed a set of heads and a SC?

LOL! BS huh? yeah right, like I said, I have never had a stock 302 pull me anywhere through the powerband, and I have lined up with enough of them. Granted, a 302 might pull harder form say 2,000 to 3,000, but who cares? I launch at 2,500 anyway so my car never see's 2,000.

NicksGT · Aug 15, 2003

Down low the 302 has feels alot stronger than the 4.6. I had an '86 (year with crappy heads and intake) and when I test drove my '99 I remember thinking "These things really aren't that fast".

Now where the 4.6 shines is up top. The stock 5.0 would fall flat on it face around 4500 rpms, but the 4.6 keeps pulling. Believe me, if you have ever driven a 5.0 you would know the difference. I'm not saying that the 4.6 is slower than the 5.0. I'm just saying that the old push rod motors have better low end torque than the mod motors do. They have a much better torque band. The power in the 5.0 comes right from throttle tip in, the power in the 4.6 comes somewhere near 3500 rpm.

TheSwede2002GT · Aug 15, 2003

COOL man! I wish I could my hands on one of those here in Sweden...Yeah right!! Like that's going to happen. Damn customs and tax...

kirkyg · Aug 15, 2003

NicksGT said:
Down low the 302 has feels alot stronger than the 4.6. I had an '86 (year with crappy heads and intake) and when I test drove my '99 I remember thinking "These things really aren't that fast".

Now where the 4.6 shines is up top. The stock 5.0 would fall flat on it face around 4500 rpms, but the 4.6 keeps pulling. Believe me, if you have ever driven a 5.0 you would know the difference. I'm not saying that the 4.6 is slower than the 5.0. I'm just saying that the old push rod motors have better low end torque than the mod motors do. They have a much better torque band. The power in the 5.0 comes right from throttle tip in, the power in the 4.6 comes somewhere near 3500 rpm.

They are two totally different cars that feel totally different. Again i love the 5.0L for its potential but stock...its just a dog throughout the rpm range.

kirkyg

BETTERBULLITT · Aug 15, 2003

When the heck is Red Dragon getting back from vaction?!?!? I can't stand the waiting for the numbers on this kit!

austinGT · Aug 15, 2003

Ive got both 5.0 and 4.6 right now and I'd say the 4.6 still pulls harder in all rpm ranges.

I still love my 5.0 also but the 4.6 is just plain stronger...

Edit: Btw im talking about before I modded the 4.6 at all.
And trust me i felt opposite before I bought the 4.6, I was always like ooh 5.0 will own a 4.6 etc etc......until I drove one

Black2001GT · Aug 15, 2003

ttbit said:
Torque needs are in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I have driven stock GTs, and they didn't have enough for me. My friend's Bullitt feels much better. Understand, I wasn't looking for a grocery-getter when I bought my GT. That's what my 302 Ranger is for. I am so used to having plenty of torque, I can't go with less. Now, someone who has been driving a Civic for years would get in a stock 4.6 stang from any year and it would take a while for them to get used to all that torque.

It's all what you are used to. I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Not to get :OT: but I would like to here more about the 302 Ranger. I have a 93 Ranger and I have been thinking about a 302 swap for years. I would like to find out more info about the swap.

BTW, RedDragon, hurry up with the dyno numbers.

Sam98 · Aug 16, 2003

Red Dragon said:
I was going to put the cold air kit on, but the directions for that piece sucked and did not make sense. I can leave it off and use the stock air filter for now.

Has anybody put on KB's cold air kit? Can you maybe throw a little info my way? Any pics of this? It looks like a cob-job to me. The quality of the cold air kit does not keep in-line with the quality of the supercharger. Hmmmm, do you think it was an after-thought? They do not replace the stock piece between the MAF and throttle body. Hmmmm, not good folks. The filter will also hang loose inside my fender. WTF? I am anal with having things bopping around on my car; everything must be fastened down! I might have to send that cold air kit back and get something better. I will wait and call KB on this at a later time.

It sounds like you are missing the bracket that mounts the MAF/air filter assy to the inside of the fender. At least that is how Paxton did it. As for the problems you ran into, there are also problems with installing centrifugals (modifying the AC line, punching the oil return in the oil pan, etc.) but it sounds like a pretty sweet setup overall. I have the same traction problem you described and I don't have as much torque as you probably do...it is fun to fry the tires at will though.

Congrats on your blower and enjoy...

robertdale · Aug 16, 2003

I want to hear more about how this car runs and pulls. It sounds like a great package. Also the numbers on a 94-95 are a little underrated as 75% of the 5-speeds stock(in good mechanical order) made atleast 190HP at the wheels, and 275 torque at the wheels.

VETKILR · Aug 16, 2003

Numbers,numbers!!!!!

5.Olds suck

You think they were better down low because the cars weighed 300-400lbs less. Ever drive a 94-95gt with a 5.Old in it the slowest most depressing mustang ever made...........PERIOD! Even the bad 96-98 headed 4.6s were better than them IMO!!!!

The only thing good about 5.Olds are the parts are cheap and thats just because they break all the time so they sell more! Dont even come a 4.6 tech board and compare a slug to a stallion. the 4.6s

>>> Kenne Bell 2V twinscrew SC is here!!!!!

JM01

kirkyg

Lord Warlock

New Member

ttbit

kirkyg

Steeda Cheeta

Lord Warlock

New Member

ttbit

ttbit

kirkyg

Steeda Cheeta

NicksGT

New Member

TheSwede2002GT

New Member

kirkyg

BETTERBULLITT

austinGT

Black2001GT

Sam98

robertdale

New Member

VETKILR

Similar threads

>>> Kenne Bell 2V twinscrew SC is here!!!!!

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency