BS thread - 2011 GT 11.80's @ 118 with bolt ons
05-09-2010, 01:53 PM
#124
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-09-2010, 02:10 PM
#126
I wanna run a bolt on 6.0 GTO or a cammed one. I don't know of any around here. Only a blue cammed G8. But he always comes by my work when I'm working. Never see him (or hell anything!!) when I'm actually out driving.
05-09-2010, 02:17 PM
#127
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zigroid, are you going to respond to my post or just ignore it and concede your hypothetical point?
I guess I can say the same to you that you did to stopsign in that case.
I guess I can say the same to you that you did to stopsign in that case.
05-09-2010, 02:34 PM
#130
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else find it odd that they picked up almost 10mph when swapping wheels/tires?
It also helped that they ran at ATCO. DA was probably about negative 1500.
The video will serve its purpose though, and that is to sell parts to starry eyed fanbois.
It also helped that they ran at ATCO. DA was probably about negative 1500.
The video will serve its purpose though, and that is to sell parts to starry eyed fanbois.
05-09-2010, 02:38 PM
#131
Well...they did this...and they ran there..... Stoopid fanbois Translation: Oh noes, N/A Mustang is faster then me!@
05-09-2010, 02:54 PM
#133
05-09-2010, 03:01 PM
#134
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my proof is this:
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
4 stroke engines are limited to how much torque they can make. you wont ever see a 302 cube engine making 500 ft lbs of torque. if you see one making 450 ft lbs of torque you should probably play the lottery more often as that is one incredibly stout engine not often seen.
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
4 stroke engines are limited to how much torque they can make. you wont ever see a 302 cube engine making 500 ft lbs of torque. if you see one making 450 ft lbs of torque you should probably play the lottery more often as that is one incredibly stout engine not often seen.
and btw assuming a well accepted 15% drivetrain loss, the EP mustang is almost there. 375/.85=441.17 And if that motor gets better breathing like LT's?...or better yet, some better intake cams?
Guess we all better go play the lottery 'eh?
I do have a pretty good idea of the torque the engine will produce when the aftermarket gets in to it.
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
pretty cool equation right there.
once again this isnt some magical engine that will break the rules of physics. unless there is forced induction involved that engine will not see over 450 ft lbs EVER. 450 ft lbs is probably going to be around 390 rwtq.
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
pretty cool equation right there.
once again this isnt some magical engine that will break the rules of physics. unless there is forced induction involved that engine will not see over 450 ft lbs EVER. 450 ft lbs is probably going to be around 390 rwtq.
LSx based engines see tremendous horsepower gains because they also have tremendous torque gains. as I said before you can go from 330 rwtq to 430 rwtq. thats why they make power without having to spin really high. when you have an engine that makes 350 rwtq peak, only has the potential to make ~380-390 rwtq peak, you are going to have to find another way to make more horsepower. that other way is shifting the torque curve up. this isn't something I just pulled out of my ***, prettied up, and posted on the forum.
the mach 1 makes about 60 rwtq less than the LS1 at 2000 rpm. 1500-2500 rpm is where I drive 90% of the time. since I have already shown why they arent going to get a whole lot more torque out of the engine (ford has to deal with more stringent requirements than the aftermarket. its gonna need cats, a safer tune, etc) they are gonna have to shift the RPM band up to make more hp. what part of this dont you understand?
Ill say it one more time. ford did a good job of getting big power out of a small package. ~425 hp and ~400 tq is pretty damn good out of a 5.0L. my initial argument was that ford doesn't have a whole lot more they can do with the engine from a production level. the aftermarket has the luxury of removing catalytic converters, running very aggressive tunes, running larger camshafts without worrying about fuel economy or emissions. you can't squeeze a whole lot more torque out of this engine so the only way to make more horsepower is to push the RPM band up. obviously if they choose to do this they will build a bottom end that can support the power but my other question was at what point does it become a high strung race engine? Ive driven M3s that need to wind to 8000 rpm to make 330 hp. ive riden in S2000s that need 8500 rpm to make 240 hp. they are not fun cars to drive normal. they suck, actually. my personal preference is big power as soon as I hit the gas. others are different, I understand that.
Do you mind if I ask you if you have an engineering degree? I ask because you seem to have the mentality of a young (or inexperienced) engineer of some sort.
And if you haven't already check out this thread: https://ls1tech.com/forums/dyno-benc...numbers-2.html
Last edited by ponygt65; 05-09-2010 at 03:15 PM.
05-09-2010, 03:04 PM
#135
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-09-2010, 03:28 PM
#136
Cat-back+tune+wheels/tires = 11's, remember?
05-09-2010, 03:33 PM
#138
I get out of the marine corps in 6months and 28 days and I have to run down 95 to get to alabama ill see what i can do
05-09-2010, 03:38 PM
#139