3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise?? - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > Pre-2005 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 07-10-2009, 10:28 AM   #36
15.3 Second V8 Killer Yo
Legacy
Regular
 
PureVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 7,212
Send a message via AIM to PureVenom Send a message via MSN to PureVenom Send a message via Yahoo to PureVenom
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by blownranger View Post
sooo IATs are usually around 100? and i hear ford pulls timing around 160 on the cobras? mhmmm
Ford starts pulling timing around 130 in the cobras. At least, that's where my car would pull timing at. With the ported blower I was seeing IAT2's of 135-140 and I would never hit the 23* of timing that was being commanded. I would max out at 21...sometimes only 20. Now, with the KB, I am seeing IAT2's of 120 and I am hitting my max commanded 19* of timing.

I would expect IAT's to be in the 150-160 range with the heaton @ 8 psi...probably 180s in this heat like mentioned.
__________________
"When I know more, I'll be forthcoming. Or I won't be forthcoming, and I'll be honestly deceptive." - Les Miles
PureVenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-10-2009, 10:43 AM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

well my hope is that im gonna be spinning the charger lightly, with the 2.7 pulley, im spinning it like 15000rpm max...dont some spin it rediculous like 20K or higher?

the hope was, i could get the boost i needed out of this, and the heat would be lower than the same boost out of the m90.

i know there has been talk about water meth not doing anything, because meth like vaporizes at like 148* and the rotors of the charger might get that hot or something...but if you cool the air before it goes in...i think thats worth something eh?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 03:39 PM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Region: Texas
Posts: 52
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

ryansquick6 i thought you gave good advice but should he put a turbo on his supercharger to keep the rpms on level because thats what its sounds like to me a reliable forced induction without breaking his internals on that kind of boost ?
so much boost isnt needed i think let me know thank you
dalltx is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-10-2009, 07:07 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Turbo feeding into a roots blower is a waste of time. Sooner or later, one will be a big brick wall to the other. The turbo will restrict the blower at low rpms, making it work harder. Then at the very top (assuming the turbo is big enough), the roots will act as a cork to it, slowing it down.

As for heat numbers between the M90 and M112, the bigger compressor will make equal boost with less heat all the way across the board. One of the biggest reasons I slapped the M112 on my car in the first place. It was so over sized I knew I wouldn't run into the heat issues the other roots guys were seeing with smaller compressors.
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 08:06 PM   #40
15.3 Second V8 Killer Yo
Legacy
Regular
 
PureVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 7,212
Send a message via AIM to PureVenom Send a message via MSN to PureVenom Send a message via Yahoo to PureVenom
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

^^^ What IAT2 temps are you seeing at whatever boost level your running? I assume you installed an IAT2 sensor anyhow.
__________________
"When I know more, I'll be forthcoming. Or I won't be forthcoming, and I'll be honestly deceptive." - Les Miles
PureVenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 09:43 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
RyansQuick6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 394
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

We don't run an "IAT2" sensor, we just run one, but IT IS a lightning IAT2 taht we use for it. We use the 2 outer wires from the MAF to connect to a primary sensor that is in the adapter plate.

If you come to hooter's tomorrow you'll see what i mean.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 10:11 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

The 99/00 guys just relocate the stock IAT from the inlet tube between the MAF and TB, and put it after the blower to measure the 'heated' air. I put mine at the back driver's side corner of the blower, where the stock Cobra IAT sat.
My IAT's where super low at first, but I was using N20 to cool it. Even without, it never climbed as high as people said. Non-intercooled, I was well under 200* even running it hard.
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:11 AM   #43
15.3 Second V8 Killer Yo
Legacy
Regular
 
PureVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 7,212
Send a message via AIM to PureVenom Send a message via MSN to PureVenom Send a message via Yahoo to PureVenom
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

What is "well under 200"? 160? 170? 120?
__________________
"When I know more, I'll be forthcoming. Or I won't be forthcoming, and I'll be honestly deceptive." - Les Miles
PureVenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:28 AM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Region: Texas
Posts: 52
Red face Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilRoush View Post
Turbo feeding into a roots blower is a waste of time. Sooner or later, one will be a big brick wall to the other. The turbo will restrict the blower at low rpms, making it work harder. Then at the very top (assuming the turbo is big enough), the roots will act as a cork to it, slowing it down.

As for heat numbers between the M90 and M112, the bigger compressor will make equal boost with less heat all the way across the board. One of the biggest reasons I slapped the M112 on my car in the first place. It was so over sized I knew I wouldn't run into the heat issues the other roots guys were seeing with smaller compressors.
i was wondering if your talking about v-6s or v-8s?
on a diffrent note would the same be said of a procharger and a turbo put together? (if they where the same size)
dalltx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:37 AM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
2007STANG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 295
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

i'm thinking procharger 400hp with stock engine belt driven turbo with inner cooler no where the heat issues
__________________
Billet fuel door, Daiblo 91 Tune, Xenon ram air hood scoop, MAC performance direct fit headers, 3" 304 SS Dual exhaust, hood pin appearance kit, Red l.E.D. underbody lights, Boy Racer rear wing, Helix power tower plus Throttle body spacer, ventvisor deflector, Aeroform chin spoiler, SVT 18" 9.5 45/255 frount SVT 18" 9.5 40/285 rear trire , GTO rear blackout kit, OEM rear splash guards, Steeda CAI, 8.8 rear axle with 3.73.1 LSD, killer Glass Hose, Smoked Window Louvers by GT Styling 35% Tenting on rear and side windows.
2007STANG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 07:54 PM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Mine were in the 170s non-nitrous.

Either V6 or V8, double power adder when it comes to turbo/roots is a joke. Math tells you one will slow the other at a given point. Math doesn't lie.



2007Stang - what do you mean 'belt driven turbo'? You lost me with that comment.
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 08:40 PM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
2007STANG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 295
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

ProCharger Intercooled 600+ HP 2005 Mustangs its might be a supercharger but it looks like a turbo to me
__________________
Billet fuel door, Daiblo 91 Tune, Xenon ram air hood scoop, MAC performance direct fit headers, 3" 304 SS Dual exhaust, hood pin appearance kit, Red l.E.D. underbody lights, Boy Racer rear wing, Helix power tower plus Throttle body spacer, ventvisor deflector, Aeroform chin spoiler, SVT 18" 9.5 45/255 frount SVT 18" 9.5 40/285 rear trire , GTO rear blackout kit, OEM rear splash guards, Steeda CAI, 8.8 rear axle with 3.73.1 LSD, killer Glass Hose, Smoked Window Louvers by GT Styling 35% Tenting on rear and side windows.
2007STANG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 10:28 PM   #48
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 841
Send a message via MSN to 19Delta
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

That's a supercharger. You should check out the Vortech Superchargers and see how similar they are.
19Delta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 12:06 AM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 MUSTANG COBRA TPS SENSOR 4.6L:eBay Motors (item 170247954085 end time Aug-01-09 14:31:27 PDT)

this the TPS im looking for, the connection looks like it will fit my connection..doesnt look much different, but as i have heard, its all about how its clocked or something?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 02:07 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
RyansQuick6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 394
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Yeah, it'll work with your connector, like I said you can run either the 01+ 3.8 one or the Cobra one, I think they are the same thing, but regardless they both work fine.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 05:21 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Delta View Post
That's a supercharger. You should check out the Vortech Superchargers and see how similar they are.
Any Centri style blower looks like a turbo driven by a belt. ProCharger, Vortech, Powerdyne, Paxon.....
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 10:46 AM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

alright!!! some results are in,

281whp/314wtq 14psi peak, 125degree intake temps (on the dyno, fans going and everyything...), no water meth, 12 degrees timing

he said that the 12 degrees was pretty conservative said i could go more like 16-18, and said that each degree was about 6 hp, so just about ~305whp-320whp ish...i dont know, thats just wishfull thinking.

but yaa, i didnt get to hook up the water meth cause he said that i was gonna blow the hobbs switch that i had because i ddidnt havbe a relay...the pump was going to fry the switch..


but it rips apart 1st, and second, havent had the balls to try to get to third..aahaha

my question is, if i can get this motor up to around 330-350whp...something wtq...how much is the stock lightning putting out...like 30 more than that or something?

"Power: SAE and 283 kW , 380 HP @ 4,750 rpm; 450 ft lb , 610 Nm @ 3,250 rpm"

thats what i found quickly from google...soo my question is...why arent they just putting the m112 on the 4.0! ahah ya a v8 is bad *** i guess, and soundss alot better and might be able to handle alot more in the long run...soo maybe im answering my own question..ahah
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 11:01 AM   #53
15.3 Second V8 Killer Yo
Legacy
Regular
 
PureVenom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 7,212
Send a message via AIM to PureVenom Send a message via MSN to PureVenom Send a message via Yahoo to PureVenom
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

because those numbers you quoted are the bone stock tune and not a custom tune. That would be why.

Where were you measuring intake temps?
__________________
"When I know more, I'll be forthcoming. Or I won't be forthcoming, and I'll be honestly deceptive." - Les Miles
PureVenom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 12:57 PM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

under the supercharger, on the back of the manifold
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:20 PM   #55
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Just found this thread and I'm wondering what adapter did you use for your M112 install? Is it the one from SSM? I'm planning on adding the Lightning blower to my 2005 4.2 F150.
AlienInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:58 PM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

no i had to make the manifold to hold the lightning blower.
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2010, 09:22 PM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

soo im wondering how much boost the mustang guys are seeing with the m112 and what their pulley ratio is

i feel like someone said 8lbs and i know they are making 290ish rwhp...im making 12lbs about and putting 281rwhp

i dont wanna get to locked into numbers but just wondering
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2010, 09:29 PM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
upton7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Region: Illinois
Posts: 1,756
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

i think ryan left the site after the whole short throw shifter incident
upton7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2010, 10:43 PM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

nobody else is running the kit?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 05:42 PM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Depends on which boxed upper people are using. The taller Super Six upper seems to be 280-290 at 8 psi. The shorter version runs about 320 at 8 psi. Depends on tuner and exhaust a lot as well. Some tuners aren't as aggressive as others when it comes to tuning non-intercooled roots blowers.
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 05:45 PM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

is that like the peak..like i said mine hit 10 right off then climbed slower to 13-14

did yours do anything like that?

and what was your pulley ratio?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:11 AM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
LilRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Region: Florida
Posts: 91
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Slow climb sounds like boost stacking. Too much air for how much the heads can handle...so as you keep pushing air into the manifold, it's building pressure continually.

I ran stock crank and as small as 2.78" on the blower on mine. Most run a 25% UDP with stock blower pulley.
__________________
~Matt
2000 Roush #5004 M112'd V6
1970 Mach 1 351W 5 speed swap
2001 Explorer Sport 4.0L
LilRoush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:30 AM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

So is boost stacking bad? I understand what that is.
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 11:42 AM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
96mustang21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Region: Ohio
Posts: 34
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

ok i understand u have a 4.0 forged,bored,m112 etc. i have a m90 mustang crappy sc inter cooler (im going to a fmic soon) sc heads,9.0 compression,sc injectors, headers,2-3/4 exhaust(no cats)8 rib belts,and other things im forgetting and i was told at most i would pull 200hp and 250tq @12psi with a tune. im setting up a dyno session soon just waiting to meet with him. but my ? to u is how did u pull those numbers? what mods do u have that i dont besides being forged and .3 liters more
__________________
96 v6 bottom end, sc heads, eaton m90, sc tb, bbk headers,custom tru dual 2.75 exhaust H-pipe flowmaster 40s, sc 8 rib belts,egr delete,5 speed, etc etc.
96mustang21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2010, 05:01 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

do you have the 3.8 or the 4.0? im guessing you have the 4.0 because you said mine was .3 larger than yours, which im assuming you are accounting for the boring there.

not sure if yours is ohv or sohc? i see your car is 96? so that brings up that question

and i would say the m112 is more efficient than the m90 and it puts out that additional 22cubic inches

my compression is 9.4:1 that could play a small part in the power, either way (not sure, i can put as much boost in, but have higher compression.....you can put more boost in, but have lower compression)

im on the same train, trying to compare my car to other cars power..i guess its all about how fast you run down the strip..lol but some cars make more than mine and it seems like they have less stuff done to it


i previously had a m90 on the stock 4.0 with headers and 2.5 inch straight pipe..and nothing else really...and i made only 200whp and 248wtq, which i was dissapointed with at the time...that was about 7-8 psi boost max...and at that point (no cooling agents) the m90 was getting out of its efficency range quick, i wasnt gonna be able to spin it much fast with any good gains
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2010, 01:41 PM   #66
Registered Member
Regular
 
96mustang21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Region: Ohio
Posts: 34
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

no i have the 3.8 ohv. a better ? would be how did i lose power with this swap? u seem to know alot about them. the stock super coupe made 210 hp and 315 tq and had 8.2 compression. basically all i did was up the compression to 9.0 on the supercoupe engine and put it in the mustang. i wasnt expecting 500 hp out of it but i was expecting more than 200hp 250tq especially on 12psi. i guess ill have to wait and see the dyno results. what do u run through the quarter?
__________________
96 v6 bottom end, sc heads, eaton m90, sc tb, bbk headers,custom tru dual 2.75 exhaust H-pipe flowmaster 40s, sc 8 rib belts,egr delete,5 speed, etc etc.
96mustang21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2010, 02:39 PM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

i have not ran the quarter mile, my clutch is not gonna allow that right now..swapping a centerforce dual friction in place of the spec stage 5, that should allow me to actually drive the truck...

but i dont know if its gonna be that great...

my tires are probably gonna be no wider than 265, with a light rear end..who knows...


but to your problem, the super coupe made 210/315 at the fly wheel

you will probably see alittle more than 200/250 at the wheel..which is 235/295 at the fly wheel...my guess is you will see more like 230/260WHEEL or (270/306 fly wheel) because you upped the boost and compression...but the dyno will tell you that all
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > Pre-2005 V6 Mustang

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tire size comparison for 17s (sidewall wise) SpectorV 2005-2010 Mustang GT 3 11-10-2009 06:09 PM
m112 Question weston Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 19 11-26-2008 01:27 PM
M112 Adapter sonicpony03 Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 5 12-16-2007 07:41 PM
Body wise ridenmystang Mustang Audio & Video 84 01-10-2007 07:24 PM
settled on my car today, insurance-wise jimmy_beaner The Bar 23 05-08-2006 04:34 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



10:55 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.