MAPerformance: Ultimate R&D Thread | Air, Fuel, & Turbo Upgrades

[Tamadrummer88]

Wonder what's the safe max HP on a stock block.

If i were to take a wild ass guess, i would ASSume 410-420 or so.

Sponsored

 

[Frogger]

Adam, if I already have a JLT intake, ATP modular DP and Full Race IC, (and Accessport), do I have to buy the MAP version of all these parts--or--will my existing parts work with it?

 

[BigCatDan]

Dollar for dollar, I still think the EB is worth it for a dd. So for the cost of this package and a base EB, you get a little more hp as a base gt w/ a tune and catback, correct?

The EB is 150-200 lb lighter, still gets better mpgs, and taxes and insurance are a bit less.

For the $5k for a blower on the GT, you instantly have a bad to the bone driver, but one that is going to really be too much, imo, for anything less than using drag radials at all times, unless spinning tires is your thing. Personally, I didn't like going sideways at 80 when I floored my old car.

Another benefit as far as I'm concerned is it's different.

If anyone scoffs at modding the EB vs buying a GT, just remind them it's a good mpg getting, fun commuter. Not sure what's not to like...

"The EB is 150-200 lb lighter," except when you need to add a much larger IC, bigger heavier turbo, oil cooler, oil catch can etc. The GT actually will get lighter with good headers and exhaust. I also see the eco as a much more complicated engine with more potential for failure.

However I agree on the MPG/DD aspect. Who needs 600HP as a DD esp. in cold climates!?

 

[Surtur]

except you dont NEED to add all that. you probably should though because its more fun that way.

 

[Impulsed7]

"The EB is 150-200 lb lighter," except when you need to add a much larger IC, bigger heavier turbo, oil cooler, oil catch can etc. The GT actually will get lighter with good headers and exhaust. I also see the eco as a much more complicated engine with more potential for failure.

However I agree on the MPG/DD aspect. Who needs 600HP as a DD esp. in cold climates!?

and when you add the supercharger or turbo kits to the GT how much weight are you adding?

Also, I have removed a good bit of weight from mine every time I've modded, only adding an oil cooler and soon an intercooler. Mine also started out 300 some lbs lighter than a base GT... 3452lbs then, minus my single 3 inch cat back, removing the grille shutters, and all the weights ford attached to the chassis. I'm probably getting towards 3350 or so, so add the slightly (a few lbs) heavier bigger turbo, keep my intercooler and we are only back at 3400. I'll take that slight weight gain.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

"The EB is 150-200 lb lighter," except when you need to add a much larger IC, bigger heavier turbo, oil cooler, oil catch can etc.

I think you're overestimating how much of a difference in weight these items might add.

I also see the eco as a much more complicated engine with more potential for failure.

Complexity does not necessarily mean more potential for failure. This is flawed logic. Very simple things fail all the time. One cannot make a claim of durability until one has performed thorough testing...which at this point only Ford has done, but others are in the process of.

 

[RubyRedBoost]

Not too mention I had the motor on my 2012 5.0 pop at 9k miles. Zero modifications. Threw #8 rod at 3,200rpm. So reliability is something that is perceived never gauranteed.

 

[Surtur]

complex doesnt always mean more unreliable.

it does usually mean more of a pain in the ass to fix though.

 

[Tamadrummer88]

I honestly don't see the 2.3 as a complicated motor, but I do see the ECU as a complicated piece.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigCatDan]

"Complexity does not necessarily mean more potential for failure"
Actually it does. Think of it as a series of links in a chain. More links increase the potential that any one of them could fail, thus the chain would fail. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it will fail. The key word though is "potential."

 

[dragonacc]

"Complexity does not necessarily mean more potential for failure"
Actually it does. Think of it as a series of links in a chain. More links increase the potential that any one of them could fail, thus the chain would fail. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it will fail. The key word though is "potential."

In that case the 5.0 has twice the number of pistons, rods, etc. That can fail... Which is more complex now? ;)

 

[BigCatDan]

In that case the 5.0 has twice the number of pistons, rods, etc. That can fail... Which is more complex now? ;)

Doesn't work like that unfortunately. More pistons isn't more complex from an engineering point of view. That's more linear. With a turbo you are taking a engine, be it a 4cyl or 8 cyl, and adding several layers additional complexity both by mechanical means and physics.

 

[cosmo]

Doesn't work like that unfortunately. More pistons isn't more complex from an engineering point of view. That's more linear. With a turbo you are taking a engine, be it a 4cyl or 8 cyl, and adding several layers additional complexity both by mechanical means and physics.

Tell that to cyl #8 of the early coyotes, lol, the V8 is still very complex.

Both are complex in their own way. I think this coyote in the 2015 is the better engine, as it has gone through a cycle of development and has been upgraded. The Ecoboost has shown promise in the Focus, and as the Mustang has an improved cylinder head along with essentially a stroker kit, I feel it should still do well.

 

[dragonacc]

Doesn't work like that unfortunately. More pistons isn't more complex from an engineering point of view. That's more linear. With a turbo you are taking a engine, be it a 4cyl or 8 cyl, and adding several layers additional complexity both by mechanical means and physics.

I was just making a joke based off your analogy... Links in a chain was perhaps a bit too simplistic.

 

[BigCatDan]

Perhaps!
In any case what is more complex than all of this is my wife. Been years and I haven't figured her out yet!;)

Sponsored