GregO
Well-Known Member
So they removed the speed limiter for the CJ pulls or are they using different cars for all 4 pulls on the graph in your post ?
I’d actually like to see it Rev’ed out to 7,800ish.
Sponsored
Sponsored
I’d actually like to see it Rev’ed out to 7,800ish.
DB83
Granny Shifter
Unfortunately i don't think it is, because we're no longer comparing just the manifolds. Were comparing different cars, different intakes, different throttle bodies....
I think the VMP shootout is the most accurate we will find. At the end of the day, what are they going to gain by saying a stock manifold performs so well? They're not going to make any profit from it. They specialise mostly in supercharger kits and applications.
Last edited:
GregO
Well-Known Member
Here we have a properly executed Gen2 5.0/GT350 manifold w/80mm TB Dyno pull. As suspected, the other published Dyno pulls are aborting the run far to early.
Even this pull if run out to 8k+ RPMs would’ve had a nice flat HP curve out the back door much like the Shelby GT350 pull I posted earlier.
Even this pull if run out to 8k+ RPMs would’ve had a nice flat HP curve out the back door much like the Shelby GT350 pull I posted earlier.
Last edited:
Sponsored
GregO
Well-Known Member
The VMP GT350 pull was chopped a bit early.
Once again we can see the GT350’s manifold ability to hold HP past the peak vs. the 18+ manifold.
(VMP Shootout Dyno Sheet w/80mm TB)
Last edited:
DB83
Granny Shifter
I don't know if you've looked closely, but both dynos above stopped at 7400. Even the one you claim to be properly executed. And in both dynos you can see the GT350 manifold peaks at just over 7000.
So again, my point is if you're keeping the rev limiter somewhat close to stock, the 2018 manifold performs just as well as the GT350. If your going to rev it out to 8000, then yes, the GT350 is going to be better. I've never denied that.
So again, my point is if you're keeping the rev limiter somewhat close to stock, the 2018 manifold performs just as well as the GT350. If your going to rev it out to 8000, then yes, the GT350 is going to be better. I've never denied that.
GregO
Well-Known Member
Correct but what about the Steeda pull, that was my point, Chopped way to early.
You resurrected this old thread by quoting me, I'm following through with answers.
The OP was helped by page #3 and installed the FP PP3 and hasn't looked back since.
DB83
Granny Shifter
I agree the Steeda pull was chopped way to early, but i wasn't even considering that a valid test as it was conducted on three different cars with different setups, so not really apples for apples.
I didn't resurrect it to start an argument. Just thought that anyone looking for info on the subject coming across your comment would have been put off, when in reality, the 2018 manifold is a perfectly good solution at a fraction of the cost of the GT350.
I didn't resurrect it to start an argument. Just thought that anyone looking for info on the subject coming across your comment would have been put off, when in reality, the 2018 manifold is a perfectly good solution at a fraction of the cost of the GT350.
Sponsored
GregO
Well-Known Member
Not many know based on some of the published Dyno pulls that the GT350 does carry power past the peak similar to a CJ for those that wick it out past 7500+ RPM’s.I agree the Steeda pull was chopped way to early, but i wasn't even considering that a valid test as it was conducted on three different cars with different setups, so not really apples for apples.
I didn't resurrect it to start an argument. Just thought that anyone looking for info on the subject coming across your comment would have been put off, when in reality, the 2018 manifold is a perfectly good solution at a fraction of the cost of the GT350.
Personally I find the Gen2 GT350 80mm TB PNP manifold swap a better option.
I only have about $550.00 into my GT350 80mm TB combo.
Meatball
Well-Known Member
Apologies for slightly hijacking this thread, but I've had a question for a long time and this seems to be an opportunity, esp with the people commenting.
If the rotating parts in the gen2 coyote can safely rev out to 7500 (even the warrantied power pack 3 raises the rev limiter to ~7500, so FP thinks its safe to warranty knowing people who buy it will track it and visit 7500 all the time)...and the improvements over the gen1 are all focused at allowing higher rpm (stronger rods, stiffer valve springs, better flowing heads, more aggressive cam), why did Ford keep the stock gen2 redline the same at 7k?
I have a feeling after deciding on these improvements Ford wanted it to feel torquier than a Boss 302 for the new global S550 market and slapped an IM that keels over at 6500.
Anyone know?
GregO
Well-Known Member
I don’t know but the manifolds have been a work in progress for the Ford design team.
I’d like to think it’s the result of manufacturing and computational flow dynamics evolution.
As far as Ford Performance Raising the limiter again I’d wager the percentage of Mustang owners on a global scale purchasing the PP3 kit is less than 1% of total Mustang sales so from a warranty liability that’s a very low risk.
Meatball
Well-Known Member
Could be. There’s nothing in the Roadrunner that lets it live longer than the gen2 at high rpm. But it has a manifold that lets it breathe up there. And the B302 is also limited numbers but I haven’t heard of failures related to wear in them when stock.
I think thedesigners tune the IM to help meet the torque curve they’re interested in. Seems like they juiced up the gen2s high rpm capability then decided to trade a lot of that forthe low-midrange with the relatively long runner IM. But I don’t know…
Sponsored