3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise?? - 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 05-18-2009, 09:40 PM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

heyyy, so first off, sorry to infiltrate as a massive neubb with my problems, but i come to you all because i believe that you all have a better sense of what you may be talking about when you put a m112 on a car...

soo im a ranger owner, 4.0 SOHC, and i put a lightning m112 on top (same as cobra, intake is on top though)....

im wondering if this should put out the power that the 3.8 was making from all of you mustang users that put that SSM manifold on there engines...the best i have seen is the 296.4rwhp/317rqtq from



but not sure if hes maxing that out with water meth or anything like that?

i was shooting for 300rwhp with my 4.0SOHC
bored .30 over
forged 9.4:1 pistons (9.7:1 is stock)
pocket ported heads
lightning blower (2.91 pulley, 6.5 crank)
lightning intake
lightning TB
lightning MAF/filter
JBA shorty headers
stock Y-pipe (with two cats) with true dual straight pipe after that
water meth after charger


soo should this be up there? will i have to work with a different pulley combinations?

again, sorry for coming in with my ranger problems, but i feel the mustang community knows m112 better than the ranger one
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-18-2009, 11:38 PM   #2
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??

Nobody really uses the SSM adapter, I know the guy that makes the best/lowest adapter. SO far, on a COMPLETELY stock engine, ok it has a very mild cam in it, the best has been around 330rwhp, which is a pretty good jump from 190flywheel hp.

Explorer Express makes an M112 kit for the 4.0, but I hear it has some issues with chewing belts.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 07:00 AM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

yaa idk what the cost would of been for the explore kit, but i didnt wanna mess with that price soo i made my own for very cheap, and sooo far the belt is doing swell




soo you dont see if surprising anyone if this makes over 300rwhp? i dk if its the right thinking, but it has more power stock than the 3.8? and i think im looking to shove alittle more air in than 12psi and such, like i said thats probabbly not the riht way to think..but
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-19-2009, 11:57 AM   #4
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??

If you run a termi blower and ditch the "L" blower, you'll have a TON more room, you just have to run the intake to the opposite side.


Anything over 13-14psi is producing too much heat to be efficient with the Eaton. I've been slowly working on a way to install a small whipple, and then the boost can get retarded with very little heat.

I assume your rods are forged as well, and being bored .030 I would assume your displacement is around 4.4??? Compression is a little bit high, but that's no big deal.

You NEED to have a dyno tune done, especially before you really get on it or it's gonna blow. You should be making around 350-375 if it's properly tuned with that bottom end
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 01:18 PM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

i originally had ron casters m90 kit on there for the low end tourqqe because i pull a trailer and such and then i decided to upgrade to the lightning blower.....i think this is my max, but i know that the lightning owners boost these up to somehwere around 18-19 when its ported (mine is not), but the charger should not max out on my ranger..

noo bored out i think its no even a 4.1L.

i read somewhere that the m112 was making heat numbers that were almost that of intercooled setups..i dont know how, but im gonnna use the water meth to try and cool it....its definatelly gonna be a lot cooler than the m90 would of been.

im really not that sure how much boost this is going to make, i think the stock pulley on the lightning made 8#s? but i think the lower on the lightning was bigger than mine....but some of the ranger owners have said this 6.5in crank and 2.91 charger pulley should get ABOUT 10#...ported heads might do something to that number and headers as well?....then step it down to the 2.8 i think (lowest i wanna go? not really sure without dynoing it right?) it should get like 13#?

i havent put the pedal down at all..there are 470miles on that motor and all have been in vacuum...its getting a dyno tune in 200-300 (not really mile specific, i just need the money to put W/M and the lightning MAF on...)

its probably getting tuned by mike dez racing in MASS if anyone knows of them?

soo bottom line, you think i should be making 350-375rwhp? with this setup...if so (on 14ish#) that is VERYYYY acceptable for me as a ranger owner
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 06:55 PM   #6
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??

I was accounting for stroke as well as bore, that's why I was thinkin the displacement numbers were higher lol

Yeah, with the right flow and rotating assembly you could get that kind of power. But the eaton is VERY inefficient and produces a good bit of heat, also on lightnings and Cobras it flows through an intercooler, in our application, the intercooler is removed, so it hurts in that respect. You can probably get 15psi out of it if you can keep your IAT's down. Don;t be suprised if you see 180* IAT's at 15psi though.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 08:33 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

dont really do tuning or know the ins and outs, but is 180 alot?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 10:16 PM   #8
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??

Put it this way, the 03/04 cobras start pulling timing when IAT2 temps get above 150. 180 is plenty help you along the way of detonation and melting pistons.
__________________
"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 05-19-2009, 10:35 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

aight soo on that temperature note...i moved the IAT sensor after the charger, and it has 2 wires.....and those wires needed to be connected to the outside 2 wires on the MAF..right? did it matter which one went to E/F on the MAF, people told me no...

just trying to make sure that sensor is completely accurate before i go dyno it...but im sure i would be getting a check engine light if the sensor wasnt working or something?
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 12:14 PM   #10
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, you use the two outer wires on the maf for the IAT, and it doesn't matter on the polarity. Also you need to make sure the IAT is as direct inline with the charged air as possible to get a good reading.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 02:09 PM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

direct line...i dont think it can go anywhere in a direct line..the back of the "box" manifold is the only place there is space for it.
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 04:40 PM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
SaleenFiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisiana
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 2,318
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyansQuick6 View Post
If you run a termi blower and ditch the "L" blower, you'll have a TON more room, you just have to run the intake to the opposite side.


Anything over 13-14psi is producing too much heat to be efficient with the Eaton. I've been slowly working on a way to install a small whipple, and then the boost can get retarded with very little heat.

I assume your rods are forged as well, and being bored .030 I would assume your displacement is around 4.4??? Compression is a little bit high, but that's no big deal.

You NEED to have a dyno tune done, especially before you really get on it or it's gonna blow. You should be making around 350-375 if it's properly tuned with that bottom end
Steig. Porting says the Eaton is most efficient at ~ 15psi on the Cobra setups, so your probably right for a v6
SaleenFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 04:56 PM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

yaaa i looked into getting that ported, as well as the upper intake and TB (not really ported..but cleaned? i dk..)....but i couldnt justify the 600ish$ for this on a ranger! ahah..and some people told me that porting was pretty much for those lightning users that are maxing out the blower and wanna spin it alot faster...and i dont know if ill max this out, or come close? but i know im not looking for as much demand from it as the lightning owners are....

kinda a dumb question, but when you say its most efficent at 15psi....its still fine under that right...is ~15# where you get like the best power/heat ratio or something??
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 05:13 PM   #14
Registered Member
Regular
 
SaleenFiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisiana
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 2,318
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by blownranger View Post
yaaa i looked into getting that ported, as well as the upper intake and TB (not really ported..but cleaned? i dk..)....but i couldnt justify the 600ish$ for this on a ranger! ahah..and some people told me that porting was pretty much for those lightning users that are maxing out the blower and wanna spin it alot faster...and i dont know if ill max this out, or come close? but i know im not looking for as much demand from it as the lightning owners are....

kinda a dumb question, but when you say its most efficent at 15psi....its still fine under that right...is ~15# where you get like the best power/heat ratio or something??
Yes by saying efficient, you are making the best output the blower can make with the least loss of wasted energy, which in some cases is heat. I am not saying that is the MOST POWER THE BLOWER MAKES. It is just the most power with the least amount of loss or wasted energy!
SaleenFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 12:03 AM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

soooooo general question, i have the m112 boost actuator on there (i think its the m112)...its different than the one i had on my m90 when i had that...this one has 2 barbed fittings on it...i was told to hook the bottom one up to "boost/vac" and leave the top one open....is that true? ...

my charger seems like it wants to boost REAL easily..im just wondering if that has something to do with it..or if its just normal with this setup for the charger to wanna booosttt
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2009, 10:49 PM   #16
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

i think some people answered that boost question for me...they said its pretty normal with these roots blowers to wanna boost....

but a big problem is my clutch...stage 5 spec clutch...yess i know, definatelly too high of a clutch for my application...its REALL GRABBY....i can start in 2nd gear fine...but 1st is a pain....have to SLOWWWWWWLLLY let the clutch out....and even then its like nooo slipping.......but its even worse in reverse? is that just because of the gearing?

im having some problems with engaging it...it wont go into gear sometimes when i come to a stop, i think there is a bubble in the master cylinder or something....
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2009, 10:18 AM   #17
Registered Member
Regular
 
SaleenFiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisiana
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 2,318
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by blownranger View Post
i think some people answered that boost question for me...they said its pretty normal with these roots blowers to wanna boost....

but a big problem is my clutch...stage 5 spec clutch...yess i know, definatelly too high of a clutch for my application...its REALL GRABBY....i can start in 2nd gear fine...but 1st is a pain....have to SLOWWWWWWLLLY let the clutch out....and even then its like nooo slipping.......but its even worse in reverse? is that just because of the gearing?

im having some problems with engaging it...it wont go into gear sometimes when i come to a stop, i think there is a bubble in the master cylinder or something....
What gearing do you have? I would think at least 3.73 or 4.10 in the truck. Those gears should actually help you in making an easier move in first.
SaleenFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2009, 01:21 PM   #18
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

not sure, whatever stock is.

when i said gearing, i meant like, is reverse the same size gear ratio as first? soo would thee......ahah not sure where im going with this
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 09:54 AM   #19
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

180 is a lower temp as well some report MUCH higher temps, adding more psi is not the answer always you have to control that heat, some make more power on lower boost just due to this
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:49 AM   #20
Registered Member
Regular
 
SaleenFiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisiana
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 2,318
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by blownranger View Post
not sure, whatever stock is.

when i said gearing, i meant like, is reverse the same size gear ratio as first? soo would thee......ahah not sure where im going with this
The transmission gear ratios for the 1st and reverse will be dramatically different most likely
SaleenFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:40 PM   #21
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

yaa i think its a clutch problem...someone with a ranger put a dual friction centreforce in his, and like 100 miles after he put it in, he bleed it by the manual, but that didnt work for me...HMMM? but im gonna try taking the master out and tipping it so the plunger is facing down, people say that will get the air out (they said its almost impossible to get the our out with the technique in the manual)


http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/u...3/IMG_2077.jpg

do those wires look the same?? the bottom one is a MASSIVE (company) 05-06 mustang wire...i was told they would fit, but they barely even latch onto the spark coil...and the electrode is liek a good 1/8 inch too short....the guy at massive was like "ooo well i know they are the same wire..." and ium like "yaa well im not willing to force them on and break them and then you wont take them back as a return..." and he was like "alright whatever floats your boat..." "returning them actually would float my boat..."
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 09:00 AM   #22
Registered Member
Regular
 
SaleenFiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisiana
Region: Louisiana
Posts: 2,318
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

Quote:
Originally Posted by blownranger View Post
yaa i think its a clutch problem...someone with a ranger put a dual friction centreforce in his, and like 100 miles after he put it in, he bleed it by the manual, but that didnt work for me...HMMM? but im gonna try taking the master out and tipping it so the plunger is facing down, people say that will get the air out (they said its almost impossible to get the our out with the technique in the manual)


http://i663.photobucket.com/albums/u...3/IMG_2077.jpg

do those wires look the same?? the bottom one is a MASSIVE (company) 05-06 mustang wire...i was told they would fit, but they barely even latch onto the spark coil...and the electrode is liek a good 1/8 inch too short....the guy at massive was like "ooo well i know they are the same wire..." and ium like "yaa well im not willing to force them on and break them and then you wont take them back as a return..." and he was like "alright whatever floats your boat..." "returning them actually would float my boat..."
As far as bleeding the master cylinder on the clutch, I am not sure. I could help you do the brake master cylinder but I'm not even sure what the ranger clutch master cylinder looks like! BTW those plug wires look similar but they are different. Although if they are after market they may be the best you can get with after market. I would see if you could get some through Ford to eliminate the hassle.
SaleenFiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:35 AM   #23
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

yaaa mhmm, im wondering if the wires changed from like 01-04 mustang to 05-06 mustang....cause i thought the msutang wires should of fit my ranger...

but they do make ranger JBA wires..(people said JBA boots come apart easily..) and MSD apparently disconntinued their wire for the ranger, sooo i was told that the mustang ones would fit, but the damn electrode is WAY tooo short...
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2009, 11:58 PM   #24
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

does anyone know if i would be able to take the throttle position sensor off of my stock 55mm TB and put it onto the twin blade 65mm body? the problem is, i took that stock TPS off and put it on the lightning one, and now im getting a check engine light reading, p1120 might be one letter/number missing, but its "TPS voltage range to low" and i did some thinking, and it occured to me that i had to twist the TPS a good bolt hole for the holes to line up, almost like i was preloading the sensor if you will....and when i threw it on the lightning, the holes just matched up...soo i drilled the holes out and twisted the TPS about the amount that it twists on the stock on...but its still coming up with that CEL code
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 08:19 AM   #25
Moderator Emeritus
Legacy
Regular
 
SpectorV's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Region: Alabama
Posts: 26,049
Send a message via AIM to SpectorV
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

good question, I know they make it work with the 3.8 so I am sure there is a way to do it... but I have never heard anyone say
__________________
2003 Cobra Vert (Redfire) #3938 of 5082 @ 05/27/2003
472rwhp/493rwtq -Modification List - Dyno Sheet
2012 Mustang 3.7L M6 (Kona Blue)
2011 Ford Edge Sport (Red Metallic)
SpectorV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 09:01 AM   #26
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??

You may have to use a cobra or 01+ v6 tps. It's all in how it "clocked." My Stock one worked for mine.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 10:43 AM   #27
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

the cobra one should work because they use the twin blade on that right? but my worry is, will those plug into my harness? i can take a picture i guess, or are all ford TPS plugs the same...its a 3 plug design
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2009, 11:06 AM   #28
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 01-04 V6 TPS works. And if I remember right, it's the same part number as the stock 03/04 Cobra.


For whatwever it's worth, the car in the video (first post) isn't using a SSM intake, Rico's using one I made.
__________________
~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 07-08-2009, 02:58 PM   #29
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

alright soo im just guessing, but is ryansquick6 TPS in that 01-04 V6 range.? or is his even a v6...cause if his worked, that would be why?? because its the same TPS on the cobra as well...should i just go for that? anyone have a part number, i found one on ebay for 40shipped, is that a good price? seller is a power seller, soo it seems legit..
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 11:51 AM   #30
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??

Mine is an 02 so I was able to use my stock one, I had actually ordered a Cobra one, but they are the exact same.

Here's the most recent pic of it all installed.

RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:10 PM   #31
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

ryan, is that a 8 rib or 6 rib belt...cause i have a 6 rib and you have like 20 degrees more wrap than me (at the moment, im making a idler)...what PSI are you running?

what are you doing about heat issues? if they are issues? intercooler? im very unaware of the mustang 3.8 kit, can you intercool it even? or does that add like 5 inches to the height, you using water meth?

what are your numbers for that beast? specs? maybe all that is in your sig, soo im about to check that link out, ahahah

thanks
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 08:01 PM   #32
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??

It's a 6-rib, the highest idler you see is the one I added. I plan to make a plate to move two smaller idlers even closer for better wrap on both the supercharger and the alternator. I am currently running 0psi, since it's in pieces right now, but I jsut picked the heads up and I'm about to put it all back together. I will be running 8psi +/-. Have yet to dyno tune it, so I'm not sure about the rest. No way to intercool it and I'm NOT running water meth at the current time, I might add it later, but merely for track use.

I'm also running a 4 1/2" Kaenen cowl hood to clear it all and i have PLENTY of clearance. I think for your application, the GT500 supercharger might be a better fit, due to the air inlet being on the driver's side.

The main thing is getting the boost right, you have to do that based on the ratio of you crank pulley vs the termi lower pulley to that of the supercharger pulley, otherwise you'll overspin it and blow the heads clean off the thing, or underspool it and never see any power or build any boost.

I'm running a 42% UDP, so I haev to run a 2.93 upper to make 8psi. Most of the v6 mustang guys are running a 25% with the stock s/c pulley and making around 8-9psi. The resason I went the route I did was to improve hood clearance issues that many guys are having with the pulley.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 09:30 PM   #33
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

soooo...there were noo heat issues on your car? did you have it together at one point and dyno/tune it?? or you have not had that soo heat could be an issue and you dont know it.


i dont know what im doing about the pulley situation..im staying with the stock pulley since its a 4.0 and yaa...ranger, not much choice and not much space to overdrive..if thats what i could be doing...but its a 6.5...and when i was testing out the m112 with the 2.93 pulley...stock engine....stock heads and such, just bigger injectors...it was making 9-10psi....soo now i have pocket ported the heads and lowered the compression of the pistson to 9.4 instead of 9.7 ...and i have a 2.8 and 2.7 pulley to try out at the dyno.

what i noticed like now...is that a kenne bell or whipple or something, something LARGE like that would of actually fit under the stock hood...ahaha cause the outlet is on the back and goes to the driver side...but..dont need that much..

but yaa, i feel like im gonna be fighting heat...i made 200rwhp with a m90 on 5psi, stock engine, stock injectors/fuel pump, headers, cat back straight pipe...and that should of been 220ish..tuner sucks...

soo im hoping the m112 doesnt need to be spun that fast to produce some numbers, hopefully that will reduce the heat, and then we can go from there and spin it alittle faster, and im hoping that from the physics i have picked up from this, the ported heads lowers the boost level, which by thermodynetics or something lowers the intake temp some...and im hoping the pistons do alittle of the same.


soo i mean, rather have the water meth inplace for the tuner to use if need be i guess
blownranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 12:56 AM   #34
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??

I fully expect IAT's in the 130-160* range. With the heat like it's been the past few weeks down here, I'd venture to guess that under WOT, the IAT's may even hit dangerous 180-190* temps.

I make 200rwhp N/A with bolt ons, I figured the 4.0 would do much better even under minimal boost. Another thing to remember is that Lightnings had a smaller pulley on the supercharger than the Cobras also.

In normal high 80* temps I should be making very close to 300rwhp with 8psi, but my main concern is that I want at least 330lbft to the wheels. Then I'll build a bigger stronger motor and hopefully have some money left over for twin turbos.

Just so you know, a 3.8 on twin turbos, with an intercooler running around 100* IAT's is capable of 450rwhp sustained. Not sustained for too long because the rods start to bend, but just to give you an idea. 400hp on an all stock internals 3.8 is very doable, and safe, as long as the IAT's are ambient.
RyansQuick6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 10:19 AM   #35
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Re: 3.8 vs 4.0 (both with m112) power wise??

sooo IATs are usually around 100? and i hear ford pulls timing around 160 on the cobras? mhmmm
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



04:04 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.