Supercharging stock 5.0 - Page 2

srv1 · 06-16-2002, 10:11 PM

Unit, why cant you believe that a Cobra motor with a 6lbs boost cant make 360 rwhp? i personally seen it done. it was actually 349 rwhp.
as for intercooling, i would do it regaurdless. why mess with detonation?

StangFlyer · 06-16-2002, 10:59 PM

You guys are making my head spin. It's all relative people, and what any Mustang could theoretically make HP wise is affected by a million things...

What I gathered from what was originally asked, and what Unit originally started debating, was that he didn't feel a near stock 5.0L Mustang could make 350+ rwhp with just 8 or 9 lbs of non-intercooled boost. And, I would mostly agree with that assessment. However, a Cobra engine (5.0L or 4.6L) is a different story as it has a completely different set of heads, cam, intake, rockers, etc... To some degree I think you are both thinking different things...

Peace guys...

1995MGTS · 06-17-2002, 06:41 AM

The guy did ask whether he could make 350rwhp with ported E7 heads or GT-40P and some bolt-ons. So in that case, yes 350rwhp is possible, non-ic. A completely stock car with nothing but a supercharger, might be difficult to get to that level and Unit 5302 could be right in that regards. We may have been referring to two different things since I was going under the assumption he would have the mods he mentioned.

Over on the Corral, I was in a discussion about Powerdyne's, being an owner and all. A guy by the name of 92Couper has a really nice 500rwhp car using a YS-trim. Anyway, he hates Powerdyne for some valid reasons, he had a lot of problems with them a couple of years ago. He has a website where he shows all his dyno graphs, mods, etc. His dyno with a completely stock mustang and Powerdyne pushing 9psi was 328rwhp/385rwtq. Just an example of what a completely stock 5.0 can do with 9lbs of boost.

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2002, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1995MGTS
The guy did ask whether he could make 350rwhp with ported E7 heads or GT-40P and some bolt-ons. So in that case, yes 350rwhp is possible, non-ic. A completely stock car with nothing but a supercharger, might be difficult to get to that level and Unit 5302 could be right in that regards. We may have been referring to two different things since I was going under the assumption he would have the mods he mentioned.

Over on the Corral, I was in a discussion about Powerdyne's, being an owner and all. A guy by the name of 92Couper has a really nice 500rwhp car using a YS-trim. Anyway, he hates Powerdyne for some valid reasons, he had a lot of problems with them a couple of years ago. He has a website where he shows all his dyno graphs, mods, etc. His dyno with a completely stock mustang and Powerdyne pushing 9psi was 328rwhp/385rwtq. Just an example of what a completely stock 5.0 can do with 9lbs of boost.

Most 6psi blowers are in the 1.5L displacement category. The 1.5L of displacement is not enough to flow for 435hp. The blower actually begins to restrict maximum power. Not to mention on a head/intake combo, it's hard for a blower to displace enough air to reach the 6psi maximum it's attempting to make.

As dynoed by K&N Performance Riverside, CA.

95GT Edelbrock Aluminum heads, Vortech intake, and A trim blower. 263rwhp.

95 Cobra 8psi Kenne Bell Blowzilla. 311rwhp.

95GT 9psi SVO blower, GT-40 heads/intake 261rwhp (timing issues)

95GT TFS TW heads, Vortech intake, headers, catback, Vortech V2 blower. Race gas tune. 450rwhp.

The cars were tuned by Baer Racing, Kenne Bell, Mustang Power House, and Vortech. Those are numbers from back when you didn't see so many dyno games. 110mph with 435hp is crap. Crap crap. You'd need to lose about 50hp before it would start becoming realistic. If your friend could drive that is.

Heck, what does the manufacturer know, though? LOL. Believe what you want to. If it makes you feel better, I'm sure my 02 GT will dyno 250rwhp at Swanson.

I don't have a blower, nor do I have a ton of forced induction knowledge. I have seen the REAL dynos, and I have enough basic knowledge to spot BS. Talk to Skyman about dyno's sometime. His Saleen dyno'd 331rwhp, it trapped 107mph. Other guys with the same combo as he had dynoed about 280-290rwhp. Skyman was talking to the dyno guy as he actually admitted to messing the the numbers intentionally. It's all a crock now. Real numbers are becoming increasingly hard to come by, and shops are taking advantage of that by showing ridiculous gains and quoting "the dyno doesn't lie."

srv1 PMed me a couple days ago. I flat out told him I don't feel comfortable giving a lot of forced induction information because I can't go into depths as much as I'd like. The stuff that is being quoted in here is blatently incorrect. Enough so that even an amature like myself can spot it. That's pretty bad.

1995MGTS · 06-17-2002, 07:31 PM

Unit 5302

Number one, make sure you are comparing apples to apples turbo. Meaning, a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet will give you two different numbers. Mustang Dyno's will give lower and from what I hear, more realistic numbers.

My sister's neighbor introduced me to Swanson and dynoed his stock 00GT at 221rwhp. Dyno's aren't always the same on all cars. Arguing about dyno numbers is stupid anyway. It's just numbers on a piece of paper. I too like track numbers as a true measure.

I apologize for going off topic a bit. 5302 reminds of some people that I run into at airshows. You see, I am a Navy pilot and sometimes I go to airshows and stand in front of my ugly airplane. Every once in a while, you get a person who is civilian pilot or geek who reads a bit to much of Janes who argues every point with you. They think they know it all but have no real world experience. Granted, I am not an expert at sc's and mustangs but I speak from some experience and not just what I read from a website. Anyway, my absolute favorite was when a little boy came up to my aircrew and myself at an airshow in LaCrosse, Wisconsin and asked what our airplane did. We told him it's carrier logistics, a cargo aircraft based on an aircraft carrier. He leaves and comes back in just a minute with his father who rather bluntly tells me he doesn't appreciate me lying to his son. I ask what he is talking about. He says there is no way this is a carrier aircraft because he hasn't seen it on JAG

No kidding, true story. No amount of arguing with him would change his mind.

5302, when you get a supercharger and some experience tuning your car and running it at the track I would take what you say to heart. Yet seeing that you only know what you read from Vortech or ATI's website, I really don't see that you have anything to offer, just like the guy who just knew my airplane wasn't a carrier plane because it wasn't on JAG. However, I think I will bow out of this arguement since even though I have a supercharged car, dynoed at one of the best in the country, I have no idea what I am talking about. I only wish I could have the knowledge of 5302 and a stock car to boot.

Later

Unit 5302 · 06-17-2002, 10:27 PM

No tuner can make up for the lack of physics capable of supporting his claims. If you want to go against what the manufacturers, who are interested in promoting the best case scenerio, say is what their product can do, so be it.

I've backed up what I say with some dyno pulls on a Dynojet as posted above, tuned by the manufacturers or serious Mustang peformance companies. Furthermore, I've added why it's the way that it is citing the theory behind how it works. I've also given examples, and comparisons. All you've stated is it dyno's that way because some guy at a motorsports place is magical in getting power. Wonder if he has magical supercharger powder he spinkles on the engines to increase output? At least that would be more believable.

Anybody claiming that physics is irrevlent, that the manufacturers don't know what they are talking about, and theory doesn't apply, isn't worthy of debating. Just by your lack of ability to reasonably debate or support your position, I have determined you know very little in regards to the 5.0 compared to me.

I'll find somebody worthy of debating, later.

06-16-2002, 10:11 PM	#21
srv1 Get down..... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Room 103 Posts: 2,095	Unit, why cant you believe that a Cobra motor with a 6lbs boost cant make 360 rwhp? i personally seen it done. it was actually 349 rwhp. as for intercooling, i would do it regaurdless. why mess with detonation? __________________ Cobra brakes are on! Finally..... ------------------------------------------------

06-16-2002, 10:59 PM	#22
StangFlyer Founder Join Date: Jun 1995 Location: Michigan Posts: 19,326	You guys are making my head spin. It's all relative people, and what any Mustang could theoretically make HP wise is affected by a million things... What I gathered from what was originally asked, and what Unit originally started debating, was that he didn't feel a near stock 5.0L Mustang could make 350+ rwhp with just 8 or 9 lbs of non-intercooled boost. And, I would mostly agree with that assessment. However, a Cobra engine (5.0L or 4.6L) is a different story as it has a completely different set of heads, cam, intake, rockers, etc... To some degree I think you are both thinking different things... Peace guys... __________________ StangFlyer 1991 Mustang GT - Supercharged 377 Stroker 2000 Ford Lightning - Project Lightning Hauler Media Center Gallery - View my member photos

06-17-2002, 06:41 AM	#23
1995MGTS Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Chesapeake, VA USA Posts: 69	The guy did ask whether he could make 350rwhp with ported E7 heads or GT-40P and some bolt-ons. So in that case, yes 350rwhp is possible, non-ic. A completely stock car with nothing but a supercharger, might be difficult to get to that level and Unit 5302 could be right in that regards. We may have been referring to two different things since I was going under the assumption he would have the mods he mentioned. Over on the Corral, I was in a discussion about Powerdyne's, being an owner and all. A guy by the name of 92Couper has a really nice 500rwhp car using a YS-trim. Anyway, he hates Powerdyne for some valid reasons, he had a lot of problems with them a couple of years ago. He has a website where he shows all his dyno graphs, mods, etc. His dyno with a completely stock mustang and Powerdyne pushing 9psi was 328rwhp/385rwtq. Just an example of what a completely stock 5.0 can do with 9lbs of boost. __________________ 2003 Redfire Cobra #5978 of 8394 -Pro-5.0 -DC cai -Steeda x-pipe w/cats -Steeda cat-back -Lightning pulley w/Afterburner 441rwhp/434rwtq SAE

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What is stock?	88workcar	Blue Oval Lounge	12	01-22-2003 09:06 PM
Stock Tire Sizes	GhettoPop	Windsor Power	8	01-19-2003 07:22 PM
AFR 165's or other heads with cam and stock induction	Mustang_GT_90	Windsor Power	27	11-25-2002 03:01 PM
Suspension ?--Bullitt, Eibach, Stock, or COMBO???	rel3rd	Windsor Power	3	10-15-2002 07:53 PM
LT's vs. shorties vs. stock headers	jonnyk	Windsor Power	9	01-01-2001 11:28 AM

06-17-2002, 07:31 PM	#25
1995MGTS Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Chesapeake, VA USA Posts: 69	Unit 5302 Number one, make sure you are comparing apples to apples turbo. Meaning, a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet will give you two different numbers. Mustang Dyno's will give lower and from what I hear, more realistic numbers. My sister's neighbor introduced me to Swanson and dynoed his stock 00GT at 221rwhp. Dyno's aren't always the same on all cars. Arguing about dyno numbers is stupid anyway. It's just numbers on a piece of paper. I too like track numbers as a true measure. I apologize for going off topic a bit. 5302 reminds of some people that I run into at airshows. You see, I am a Navy pilot and sometimes I go to airshows and stand in front of my ugly airplane. Every once in a while, you get a person who is civilian pilot or geek who reads a bit to much of Janes who argues every point with you. They think they know it all but have no real world experience. Granted, I am not an expert at sc's and mustangs but I speak from some experience and not just what I read from a website. Anyway, my absolute favorite was when a little boy came up to my aircrew and myself at an airshow in LaCrosse, Wisconsin and asked what our airplane did. We told him it's carrier logistics, a cargo aircraft based on an aircraft carrier. He leaves and comes back in just a minute with his father who rather bluntly tells me he doesn't appreciate me lying to his son. I ask what he is talking about. He says there is no way this is a carrier aircraft because he hasn't seen it on JAG No kidding, true story. No amount of arguing with him would change his mind. 5302, when you get a supercharger and some experience tuning your car and running it at the track I would take what you say to heart. Yet seeing that you only know what you read from Vortech or ATI's website, I really don't see that you have anything to offer, just like the guy who just knew my airplane wasn't a carrier plane because it wasn't on JAG. However, I think I will bow out of this arguement since even though I have a supercharged car, dynoed at one of the best in the country, I have no idea what I am talking about. I only wish I could have the knowledge of 5302 and a stock car to boot. Later

06-17-2002, 10:27 PM	#26
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	No tuner can make up for the lack of physics capable of supporting his claims. If you want to go against what the manufacturers, who are interested in promoting the best case scenerio, say is what their product can do, so be it. I've backed up what I say with some dyno pulls on a Dynojet as posted above, tuned by the manufacturers or serious Mustang peformance companies. Furthermore, I've added why it's the way that it is citing the theory behind how it works. I've also given examples, and comparisons. All you've stated is it dyno's that way because some guy at a motorsports place is magical in getting power. Wonder if he has magical supercharger powder he spinkles on the engines to increase output? At least that would be more believable. Anybody claiming that physics is irrevlent, that the manufacturers don't know what they are talking about, and theory doesn't apply, isn't worthy of debating. Just by your lack of ability to reasonably debate or support your position, I have determined you know very little in regards to the 5.0 compared to me. I'll find somebody worthy of debating, later.