My new Exhuast

[Revans310_merged]

I'm trying to get my Car to sound like this.

 

Awesome sounding old-school custom Coupe with a Big-Block, ITB's, and straight pipes. Unbelievable sound, for those who appreciate raw muscle. Crank it up.

[stump_breaker]

Oh man. That is fantastic!

You just can't get that sound anymore.......

[Kelsey]

MUST HAVE!!! That sounded SWEET! :D It's good stuff to hear, so many loud civics where I'm at....

[Revans310_merged]

MUST HAVE!!! That sounded SWEET! :D It's good stuff to hear, so many loud civics where I'm at....

 

 

Oh I hate those Fart Cans thumping the Boom box as they Go by.

[Kelsey]

Oh I hate those Fart Cans thumping the Boom box as they Go by.

 

 

 

Hey Now!! I drove one, it was a Dodge but still That little car had some power for a fart can.....

But at least I can stand the sound of the SGT

[Strawman]

Yeah, I'm sure your neighbors would love that.

[LuLu]

I'm trying to get my Car to sound like this.

 

I hear ya, wouldn't it be nice?

 

But, exhaust tone is relative to CID, and our 281s will never sound that bold.

[Revans310_merged]

I'm just going to put it on a CD and CRANK IT UP in the Shelby.

[LuLu]

I'm just going to put it on a CD and CRANK IT UP in the Shelby.

 

Hehehe...I've got the Bullitt chase scene audio on CD and play it all the time What a trip.

[SMGT]

A nice set of comp cams would also help. You can hear the aggressive cam profile in that beast. I read an article in one of the mustang mags that said the 4.6L is very receptive to cam upgrades. A set of cams with upgraded heads would be a nice mod for those who don't go with a s/c. Something I am contemplating for the future.

[LuLu]

A nice set of comp cams would also help. You can hear the aggressive cam profile in that beast. I read an article in one of the mustang mags that said the 4.6L is very receptive to cam upgrades. A set of cams with upgraded heads would be a nice mod for those who don't go with a s/c. Something I am contemplating for the future.

 

Engine builders will promise you the world because they want your business. But honestly, the stock 4.6L-3v is fairly well designed and a solid performer. True, it suffers from mass production of cast parts with very little final finish on the assembly line, thus I agree that a custom cam grind can deliver some improvements for a reasonable investment, but you'll get as much improvement just in upgrading the vale springs. OEM springs begin to bind and valves "float" over 5800 RPM. Replacing the heads would be a financial mistake, it just won't pay you back. Remember the inherrent limitations of a "square" engine, things can spin only so fast.

 

Stock 3V heads flow much better than most people think, within a few CFMs of stock 4V heads. If you're going to tear things down, just have the stock 3V heads cleaned up a bit, add a three angle valve cut, add some stronger valve springs, and if you want to spend the money, cams of your choice. This is not an unreasonable investment.

 

Remember something else too, engine builds become part of the car, and don't really add any value. Many folks will shy away from cars with built engines, no matter the quality and attention to detail. They would rather do it themselves, and their own way. Stock engine cars sell better, and this is a plus in the argument between building and supercharging. You can always take the supercharger off, and recover some of your investment in resale, or recycle it to another car.

 

Here's a thought...Pull your stock 4.6L-3V and bag it up in the corner of the garage, then go buy one of these? The second engine down is a nice deal, and much cheaper than building you own 4.6L

 

http://www.karkraft.com/new_engines.htm

[SGT2666]

Engine builders will promise you the world because they want your business. But honestly, the stock 4.6L-3v is fairly well designed and a solid performer. True, it suffers from mass production of cast parts with very little final finish on the assembly line, thus I agree that a custom cam grind can deliver some improvements for a reasonable investment, but you'll get as much improvement just in upgrading the vale springs. OEM springs begin to bind and valves "float" over 5800 RPM. Replacing the heads would be a financial mistake, it just won't pay you back. Remember the inherrent limitations of a "square" engine, things can spin only so fast.

 

Stock 3V heads flow much better than most people think, within a few CFMs of stock 4V heads. If you're going to tear things down, just have the stock 3V heads cleaned up a bit, add a three angle valve cut, add some stronger valve springs, and if you want to spend the money, cams of your choice. This is not an unreasonable investment.

 

Remember something else too, engine builds become part of the car, and don't really add any value. Many folks will shy away from cars with built engines, no matter the quality and attention to detail. They would rather do it themselves, and their own way. Stock engine cars sell better, and this is a plus in the argument between building and supercharging. You can always take the supercharger off, and recover some of your investment in resale, or recycle it to another car.

 

Here's a thought...Pull your stock 4.6L-3V and bag it up in the corner of the garage, then go buy one of these? The second engine down is a nice deal, and much cheaper than building you own 4.6L

 

http://www.karkraft.com/new_engines.htm

 

 

WTH are you talking about things can spin only so fast LOL A small cube motor thats square can spin <bleep> fast. Square is a small concession trying to give our little bitty 281inches some torque but still that short stroke lets you spin like a banshee. Lots of rods and piston sets out there for 9k how fast you want to spin. CNC ported heads could be a significant HP gain especially if you're willing to let it spin and add cams to make HP on top. The down side is you usually lose bottom end and fuel economy making the power adder a much preffered path for the street.

[LuLu]

WTH are you talking about things can spin only so fast LOL A small cube motor thats square can spin <bleep> fast.

 

I'm talking about the natural limitations of our stock 4.6L-3V engines as they roll off the assembly line, not custom built special applications.

Square is a small concession trying to give our little bitty 281inches some torque but still that short stroke lets you spin like a banshee. Lots of rods and piston sets out there for 9k how fast you want to spin.

 

"Spin like a Banshee?" Banshees don't spin, they scream, and they exist only in Celtic mythology. So, your 9K RPM engine will scream, yes. But, it will still take a little longer for the square design to scream at volume.

 

Anyway...Now you're talking about a custom built bottom end, and I agree that there are aftermarker components that can move the fail point up the RPM scale. However, because it's still a square, low end torque is disappointing, and when you stick one of these engines into something that promises to be a performance car, you get disappointed. It's that simple.

 

The 4.6L-3V is not a race prepared engine, never was meant to be. Sure, you can build it into a real screamer and with that, 9K RPM is "no sweat". How about 12K RPM and 1K BHP, for around 40K? But, you still won't get the low end torque needed to make the car quick from a standing start. Delivering high RPMs does not deliver (not even promise) low RPM torque, and it's torque that moves things forward from a standing start, or, a rolling punch to the floor.

CNC ported heads could be a significant HP gain especially if you're willing to let it spin and add cams to make HP on top. The down side is you usually lose bottom end and fuel economy making the power adder a much preffered path for the street.

 

HP gain again, awe Jeeze...Told you guys before, build the low end torque, the high end HP will follow.

 

Yeah, yeah, buy all the brand name toys, I know that game. It still comes down to combustion chamber volume and it's still a 281 CID engine. Doesn't matter how highly ported your heads are, how large your valves are, or, how aggressive your cam profile. You can have the air flow of a JATO rocket, and there's still only so much room for the air charge inside each cylinder. I don't understand why you don't get this, it's as easy to understand as the old addage "ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag", and why some women shouldn't wear spandex...

 

If the 4.6L-3V was capable of more low end torque with minor modification, why did engineers spend so much time and money shoe-horning the 5.4L-4V into the GT 500? Because they wanted a 500 HP car, and there is no replacement for displacement. The 4.6L-4V was the base engine for the '03-'04 SVT Cobra, and it wasn't going to the 500+ "big show". Why?

 

This is the rationale for many owners who chase after "big bore" and "stroker" engines, but again, we're talking about major changes now, and a discussion outside the parameters of this thread. But, like all threads, it goes where you take it. Sigh...

 

Sir...The advice I offer my brother SGT owners here is based on what works, and how much it's going to cost. Basic "bang for the buck" advice, and how not to waste money on mods that work well for other engine designs, but won't produce likewise results with the 4.6L-3V. At least you and I, Wado, agree on one point, which is that supercharging (and turbo charging, almost twins in technology) is the better bang, delivering more power for your bucks. This is my only point.

 

BTW, I don't care what it is, or what it's made of. Everything that rotates has a spin limitation. It's called the "whip" factor, where the base metalurgy of the component fails after a cetrain centrifugal RPM speed, and breaks apart. Pistons, rods, cranks, tranny gears, driveshafts, ring and pinions, axles, wheels, and so on...They all have their maximum RPM limitation where the metal can't take the RPM, and the metal separates. Sure, you can build a 9K RPM 4.6L, but it won't go to 10K RPM, and this, my friend, is basic science, and truth we can rely on.

 

Just my .02C, carry on gents.

 

EDIT: Wado, next time you want to call me an azz, just say so. It will save you some typing, and you may enjoy my reply.

[Revans310_merged]

Yep this is sure a Family...This is what me and my brother do all the Time.

 

Now shake hands and have a Drink on me.

 

Just incase you forgot.

 

http://www.ehow.com/how_2737_shake-hands.html

[SGT2666]

I'm talking about the natural limitations of our stock 4.6L-3V engines as they roll off the assembly line, not custom built special applications.

 

"Spin like a Banshee?" Banshees don't spin, they scream, and they exist only in Celtic mythology. So, your 9K RPM engine will scream, yes. But, it will still take a little longer for the square design to scream at volume.

 

Anyway...Now you're talking about a custom built bottom end, and I agree that there are aftermarker components that can move the fail point up the RPM scale. However, because it's still a square, low end torque is disappointing, and when you stick one of these engines into something that promises to be a performance car, you get disappointed. It's that simple.

 

The 4.6L-3V is not a race prepared engine, never was meant to be. Sure, you can build it into a real screamer and with that, 9K RPM is "no sweat". How about 12K RPM and 1K BHP, for around 40K? But, you still won't get the low end torque needed to make the car quick from a standing start. Delivering high RPMs does not deliver (not even promise) low RPM torque, and it's torque that moves things forward from a standing start, or, a rolling punch to the floor.

 

HP gain again, awe Jeeze...Told you guys before, build the low end torque, the high end HP will follow.

 

Yeah, yeah, buy all the brand name toys, I know that game. It still comes down to combustion chamber volume and it's still a 281 CID engine. Doesn't matter how highly ported your heads are, how large your valves are, or, how aggressive your cam profile. You can have the air flow of a JATO rocket, and there's still only so much room for the air charge inside each cylinder. I don't understand why you don't get this, it's as easy to understand as the old addage "ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag", and why some women shouldn't wear spandex...

 

If the 4.6L-3V was capable of more low end torque with minor modification, why did engineers spend so much time and money shoe-horning the 5.4L-4V into the GT 500? Because they wanted a 500 HP car, and there is no replacement for displacement. The 4.6L-4V was the base engine for the '03-'04 SVT Cobra, and it wasn't going to the 500+ "big show". Why?

 

This is the rationale for many owners who chase after "big bore" and "stroker" engines, but again, we're talking about major changes now, and a discussion outside the parameters of this thread. But, like all threads, it goes where you take it. Sigh...

 

Sir...The advice I offer my brother SGT owners here is based on what works, and how much it's going to cost. Basic "bang for the buck" advice, and how not to waste money on mods that work well for other engine designs, but won't produce likewise results with the 4.6L-3V. At least you and I, Wado, agree on one point, which is that supercharging (and turbo charging, almost twins in technology) is the better bang, delivering more power for your bucks. This is my only point.

 

BTW, I don't care what it is, or what it's made of. Everything that rotates has a spin limitation. It's called the "whip" factor, where the base metalurgy of the component fails after a cetrain centrifugal RPM speed, and breaks apart. Pistons, rods, cranks, tranny gears, driveshafts, ring and pinions, axles, wheels, and so on...They all have their maximum RPM limitation where the metal can't take the RPM, and the metal separates. Sure, you can build a 9K RPM 4.6L, but it won't go to 10K RPM, and this, my friend, is basic science, and truth we can rely on.

 

Just my .02C, carry on gents.

 

EDIT: Wado, next time you want to call me an azz, just say so. It will save you some typing, and you may enjoy my reply.

 

 

I'm sorry you will not be looking for big torque from 281 inches at best there are trade offs but ultimate perfromance from a motor this small is going to be on top. HP and torque are directly related build HP and torque will follow to some extent. Yes everythng has limits no doubt but a square 281 inches has limits that will be very expensive to plumb. The short stroke slows piston speed helping lmit inertial forces wanting to tear the motor apart. With modern metalurgies I'm sure 14k is attainable, I'm guessing the valve train will prove to be the more limiting factor or at least will take some thought and engineering to get sorted. No offense LuLu I just found the idea that you put forth that the square design is some how limited a bit disconcerting, I consider it to be just about optimal. We do agree as do most of the manufacturers these days that the best way to make effective power and low end torque with no cubes is hands down a power addeer. You may spend much more and never achieve comparable results normally aspirated.

[SGT2666]

I'm talking about the natural limitations of our stock 4.6L-3V engines as they roll off the assembly line, not custom built special applications.

 

"Spin like a Banshee?" Banshees don't spin, they scream, and they exist only in Celtic mythology. So, your 9K RPM engine will scream, yes. But, it will still take a little longer for the square design to scream at volume.

 

Anyway...Now you're talking about a custom built bottom end, and I agree that there are aftermarker components that can move the fail point up the RPM scale. However, because it's still a square, low end torque is disappointing, and when you stick one of these engines into something that promises to be a performance car, you get disappointed. It's that simple.

 

The 4.6L-3V is not a race prepared engine, never was meant to be. Sure, you can build it into a real screamer and with that, 9K RPM is "no sweat". How about 12K RPM and 1K BHP, for around 40K? But, you still won't get the low end torque needed to make the car quick from a standing start. Delivering high RPMs does not deliver (not even promise) low RPM torque, and it's torque that moves things forward from a standing start, or, a rolling punch to the floor.

 

HP gain again, awe Jeeze...Told you guys before, build the low end torque, the high end HP will follow.

 

Yeah, yeah, buy all the brand name toys, I know that game. It still comes down to combustion chamber volume and it's still a 281 CID engine. Doesn't matter how highly ported your heads are, how large your valves are, or, how aggressive your cam profile. You can have the air flow of a JATO rocket, and there's still only so much room for the air charge inside each cylinder. I don't understand why you don't get this, it's as easy to understand as the old addage "ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag", and why some women shouldn't wear spandex...

 

If the 4.6L-3V was capable of more low end torque with minor modification, why did engineers spend so much time and money shoe-horning the 5.4L-4V into the GT 500? Because they wanted a 500 HP car, and there is no replacement for displacement. The 4.6L-4V was the base engine for the '03-'04 SVT Cobra, and it wasn't going to the 500+ "big show". Why?

 

This is the rationale for many owners who chase after "big bore" and "stroker" engines, but again, we're talking about major changes now, and a discussion outside the parameters of this thread. But, like all threads, it goes where you take it. Sigh...

 

Sir...The advice I offer my brother SGT owners here is based on what works, and how much it's going to cost. Basic "bang for the buck" advice, and how not to waste money on mods that work well for other engine designs, but won't produce likewise results with the 4.6L-3V. At least you and I, Wado, agree on one point, which is that supercharging (and turbo charging, almost twins in technology) is the better bang, delivering more power for your bucks. This is my only point.

 

BTW, I don't care what it is, or what it's made of. Everything that rotates has a spin limitation. It's called the "whip" factor, where the base metalurgy of the component fails after a cetrain centrifugal RPM speed, and breaks apart. Pistons, rods, cranks, tranny gears, driveshafts, ring and pinions, axles, wheels, and so on...They all have their maximum RPM limitation where the metal can't take the RPM, and the metal separates. Sure, you can build a 9K RPM 4.6L, but it won't go to 10K RPM, and this, my friend, is basic science, and truth we can rely on.

 

Just my .02C, carry on gents.

 

EDIT: Wado, next time you want to call me an azz, just say so. It will save you some typing, and you may enjoy my reply.

 

 

I'm sorry you will not be looking for big torque from 281 inches at best there are trade offs but ultimate perfromance from a motor this small is going to be on top. HP and torque are directly related build HP and torque will follow to some extent. Yes everythng has limits no doubt but a square 281 inches has limits that will be very expensive to plumb. The short stroke slows piston speed helping lmit inertial forces wanting to tear the motor apart. With modern metalurgies I'm sure 14k is attainable, I'm guessing the valve train will prove to be the more limiting factor or at least will take some thought and engineering to get sorted. No offense LuLu I just found the idea that you put forth that the square design is some how limited a bit disconcerting, I consider it to be just about optimal. We do agree as do most of the manufacturers these days that the best way to make effective power and low end torque with no cubes is hands down a power addeer. You may spend much more and never achieve comparable results normally aspirated.

 

EDIT: Wado, next time you want to call me an azz, just say so. It will save you some typing, and you may enjoy my reply.

 

I always do

[LuLu]

Yep this is sure a Family...This is what me and my brother do all the Time.

 

Now shake hands and have a Drink on me.

 

Just incase you forgot.

 

http://www.ehow.com/how_2737_shake-hands.html

 

True...Thanks for the reminder.

 

Wado...All is well. Maybe someday we'll meet face to face and shake hands in real time. Maybe have a few beers chatting over our differences.

 

Meanwhile, be safe my friend.

[SGT2666]

True...Thanks for the reminder.

 

Wado...All is well. Maybe someday we'll meet face to face and shake hands in real time. Maybe have a few beers chatting over our differences.

 

Meanwhile, be safe my friend.

 

 

Sounds good LuLu I'll buy the beer but only if we can continue to have spirited discussions

[CHOPPERS]

True...Thanks for the reminder.

 

Wado...All is well. Maybe someday we'll meet face to face and shake hands in real time. Maybe have a few beers chatting over our differences.

 

Meanwhile, be safe my friend.

 

 

WHAT'S UP LU-LU... MY CAR IS AT MIKES' HI-PERF SHOP, [HE WAS INSTALLING A 632 CID IN A 55 CHEVY, I NEVER EVEN DREAMED OF AN ENGINE THAT BIG]...DROPPED OFF THE GT-H OFF TODAY, I AM NOT SURE WHEN IT WILL BE ON THE DYNO. HE HAS A TUNING EXPERT GO THERE FROM POWER HOUSE PERFORMANCE IN ORLAND. I TALKED WITH HIM, HE SOUNDS LIKE HE WILL DO IT RIGHT, I ASKED HIM QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE, HE UNDERSTANDS TO KEEP THE FUEL RATIO AT 12:1 OR HIGH 11'S, HE ALSO SAID HE WILL DO SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TIMING, AND SO ON...

 

I AGREE THAT THESE HEADS NEED BETTER SPRINGS AND A MILD CAMS, LIGHT PORT CLEANUP, POLISHING, AND A GOOD 3 ANGLE VALVE . I ALSO INSTALLED A SET OF FORD RACING STAINLESS HEADERS, BOLTED RIGHT ON IN PLACE OF THE STOCK EXHAUST MANIFOLDS. I STRONGLY AGREE THAT THESE ENGINES ARE NOT SAFE OVER 500 HORSIES, AFTER MY EXPERIENCE, I STILL DON'T FEEL THAT COMFORTABLE EVEN WITH A MOTOR OUTFITTED WITH FORGED COMPONENTS, THE MAIN BLOCK WAS PRETTY LIGHTWEIGHT[CAN'T BE THAT STRONG]. THE 5.4 IS CAST IRON.

 

PLUS, LIKE YOU SAID, HOW MUCH CAN YOU GET OUT OF 281 CUBES???

[Revans310_merged]

Lulu is your PM Box Full?

[WI-GT/SC]

I'm talking about the natural limitations of our stock 4.6L-3V engines as they roll off the assembly line, not custom built special applications.

 

"Spin like a Banshee?" Banshees don't spin, they scream, and they exist only in Celtic mythology. So, your 9K RPM engine will scream, yes. But, it will still take a little longer for the square design to scream at volume.

 

Anyway...Now you're talking about a custom built bottom end, and I agree that there are aftermarker components that can move the fail point up the RPM scale. However, because it's still a square, low end torque is disappointing, and when you stick one of these engines into something that promises to be a performance car, you get disappointed. It's that simple.

 

The 4.6L-3V is not a race prepared engine, never was meant to be. Sure, you can build it into a real screamer and with that, 9K RPM is "no sweat". How about 12K RPM and 1K BHP, for around 40K? But, you still won't get the low end torque needed to make the car quick from a standing start. Delivering high RPMs does not deliver (not even promise) low RPM torque, and it's torque that moves things forward from a standing start, or, a rolling punch to the floor.

 

HP gain again, awe Jeeze...Told you guys before, build the low end torque, the high end HP will follow.

 

Yeah, yeah, buy all the brand name toys, I know that game. It still comes down to combustion chamber volume and it's still a 281 CID engine. Doesn't matter how highly ported your heads are, how large your valves are, or, how aggressive your cam profile. You can have the air flow of a JATO rocket, and there's still only so much room for the air charge inside each cylinder. I don't understand why you don't get this, it's as easy to understand as the old addage "ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag", and why some women shouldn't wear spandex...

 

If the 4.6L-3V was capable of more low end torque with minor modification, why did engineers spend so much time and money shoe-horning the 5.4L-4V into the GT 500? Because they wanted a 500 HP car, and there is no replacement for displacement. The 4.6L-4V was the base engine for the '03-'04 SVT Cobra, and it wasn't going to the 500+ "big show". Why?

 

This is the rationale for many owners who chase after "big bore" and "stroker" engines, but again, we're talking about major changes now, and a discussion outside the parameters of this thread. But, like all threads, it goes where you take it. Sigh...

 

Sir...The advice I offer my brother SGT owners here is based on what works, and how much it's going to cost. Basic "bang for the buck" advice, and how not to waste money on mods that work well for other engine designs, but won't produce likewise results with the 4.6L-3V. At least you and I, Wado, agree on one point, which is that supercharging (and turbo charging, almost twins in technology) is the better bang, delivering more power for your bucks. This is my only point.

 

BTW, I don't care what it is, or what it's made of. Everything that rotates has a spin limitation. It's called the "whip" factor, where the base metalurgy of the component fails after a cetrain centrifugal RPM speed, and breaks apart. Pistons, rods, cranks, tranny gears, driveshafts, ring and pinions, axles, wheels, and so on...They all have their maximum RPM limitation where the metal can't take the RPM, and the metal separates. Sure, you can build a 9K RPM 4.6L, but it won't go to 10K RPM, and this, my friend, is basic science, and truth we can rely on.

 

Just my .02C, carry on gents.

 

EDIT: Wado, next time you want to call me an azz, just say so. It will save you some typing, and you may enjoy my reply.

 

LuLu, Wado, your spirited debates really do make this a family room :D All I wanted to add was no matter what anyone does, you are not going to get a 281 to ever come close to sounding like that Big Block Chevy as I am sure you all know. It sure does sound bad a#@ though

[fatboy_merged]

MUUUHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAH!!!! i want that car so i can scare all the snobby chics in thier hundai's and them tree huggin hybrid drivers and those fast and furious wannabe rice pickin machines.

 

not that i'm goin to do this but if i were goin to...

can the 281 be stroked to a 302? if i can, what changes do i need made?

[Kelsey]

MUUUHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAH!!!! i want that car so i can scare all the snobby chics in thier hundai's and them tree huggin hybrid drivers and those fast and furious wannabe rice pickin machines.

 

not that i'm goin to do this but if i were goin to...

can the 281 be stroked to a 302? if i can, what changes do i need made?

 

YES!! that's the way to think. I think it's a pretty common to go from 281 to 302, there's a guy I go to school with that did this.

[SGT2666]

LuLu, Wado, your spirited debates really do make this a family room :D All I wanted to add was no matter what anyone does, you are not going to get a 281 to ever come close to sounding like that Big Block Chevy as I am sure you all know. It sure does sound bad a#@ though

 

 

Sadly true but my 281 is music to my ears :D

 

MUUUHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAH!!!! i want that car so i can scare all the snobby chics in thier hundai's and them tree huggin hybrid drivers and those fast and furious wannabe rice pickin machines.

 

not that i'm goin to do this but if i were goin to...

can the 281 be stroked to a 302? if i can, what changes do i need made?

 

 

I'm thinking I've seen stroker kits out there.

[LuLu]

not that i'm goin to do this but if i were goin to...

can the 281 be stroked to a 302? if i can, what changes do i need made?

 

Yes, very possible, Fat. Can't say I fully back the stroker approach, I'd rather go big bore. But, stroking is inexpensive, and seems popular in my neck of the woods. DSS does a nice job, with dozens of options, from rotating kits to built long blocks. Their rep is high durability around here, and good customer service.

 

http://www.ds ing.com/newsupermod.htm

 

Lulu is your PM Box Full?

 

No, it's turned off. But, you can reach me at SergntMac@aol.com.

 

All things said, I'm very much in love with my SGT as it sits from SAI. It's got all the power and handling I could ask for right now. If I wanted to go faster, or, quicker, I'd build another car (which I'm thinking of doing).

 

If I were to build a modular engine for the Mustang frame today, I'd start with the Ford Racing 5.0L "cammer" bare block (M-6010-T50) and build up from there. Use a stock spec 4.6L crank and rods, and 94mm pistons, and you have a 5.0L modular the natural way. May take me a while to pull all the misc. parts together, but it would be like pouring a fine wine (whine) once it's done.

 

Okay, we agree that the stock powertrain leaves some power on the table, and getting that to the ground has many options. Shy of cracking open the engine, what else can we do? Well...Simple things. Tire PSI and alignment can reduce a lot of forward drag. Auto trannys could benefit from a smaller and lighter torque converter with higher conversion ratio and some physical adjustments to the valve body and EEC tuning. It's one way of reducing that power-sapping driveline loss. Manual trannys are geared just fine, and the SGT has the best stick ever...Hurst.

 

http://www.converter.com/stallion_power.htm

 

Then consider rear end final drive gearing. 3.55:1 is sporty and all around good for all purpose driving, but 3.73:1 and 4.10:1 will deliver a better launch and more low end punch. The live axle has 31 splines at work, so you're ahead at this point. You don't have to spend a lot of bucks and tear everything apart to be a bit quicker, and if some of you are really smart, buy the gears, shim and seals, and let the TSB on Traction-Lok clutches pay the labor tab? Just a thought...

 

If you are still not happy, then neither Wado or I are wrong to suggest supercharging. Bolt it on, get it tuned safely, and drive it like you stole it. When you're done, pull it off and recycle it to dummies like me who want to pump a V6 Mustang to it's break point. Add it all up, and supercharging is your best investment.

 

Happy motoring, gents.

[WI-GT/SC]

Hey LuLu, Just wondering if you or anyone else knows what rpm's the SGT's run at top speed

in 5th gear? Thinking about maybe 3:73 or 4:11, but still want to keep it in the power band

(around 5800) and still reach top speed. Anyone have any info, I haven't driven mine yet.

Thanks! Brance

[SGT2666]

Hey LuLu, Just wondering if you or anyone else knows what rpm's the SGT's run at top speed

in 5th gear? Thinking about maybe 3:73 or 4:11, but still want to keep it in the power band

(around 5800) and still reach top speed. Anyone have any info, I haven't driven mine yet.

Thanks! Brance

 

 

I calculated it somewhere we are geared for well over 200 if we could pull it.

[LuLu]

Wado...You getting lazy on us? You did a much better job explaining things here. C'mon, get up off the couch!

I calculate that we're geared for well over 200 mph is that correct ? I'd be interested to see what a blown car can pull, I'd expect 170 180 range. This is what I put together quick not sure if its correct.

 

.062 final drive

3.55 gear ratio

83.98 tire circumference

6200 red line

 

6200 / .062 = 10,000 driveline speed

10000 / 3.55 = 2817 Axle speed

2817 * 83.98 = 236571.66

236571.66 / 12 = 19714.305 feet per minute

19714.305 * 60 = 1182858.3 feet per hour

1182858.3 / 5280 = 224 miles per hour

 

Nice job, sir!

 

Problem 1 is areodynamics. The back end will get loose from lift about 150 MPH or so. I did see 140 myself on the way home from buying my SGT (I-57 is very smooth down south, just resurfaced), and I felt a little wiggle and backed off. It was around 5000-5500 RPMs.

 

My S/C Marauder had 4.10s, and a 4R70W auto tranny with a final drive of .070. 140 MPH was routine at 6000 RPM, and the car felt like it had more to give. But, it weighed in at 4500 pounds, and areodynamically, it was a brick in the wind.

 

Problem 2 is the drive shaft. At these rotational speeds, a perfect balance is important, and be aware of rotational "whip" where the metal itself can come apart. I have no idea what to expect from the two piece SGT driveshaft, but again, my Marauder experience was that the OEM one-piece driveshaft wasn't up to the task, and a custom driveshaft was needed. It too had it's rotational limitation, but up over 7000 engine RPMs and thus outside the capabilities of the Marauder 4V anyway.