Engine setup ???s

[Turbovenom]

Oh boy. So the WHY of what Im doing here I think most can agree its a never ending debate. I think the 100k gym to do Pilates is a bit overkill. Some would argue why would you NOT build an engine when boosting even if it will be for lower hp due to octane, some would say why would you turbo if you dont intend on running e85(Newish problem btw remember e85 has been around a very short time VS the invention of the internal combustion engine which is where it all started the search for more hp has been happening since) And Finally some I am sure would say why would you turbo at all Ford has spent a zillion$s on R&D and have made a fine engine that produces great HP that gets good MPG and is reliable , leave it alone. However I have chosen I want to turbo the car. I could put the kit on my stock engine with minimal boost run 91 the car would probably be fast fun and sound great. HOWEVER I for one dont want to deal with a rod failure taking out my longblock. Also I find it strange as soon as I say 91 I get theese reactions but honestly the power this thing will make with twins on pump is more than enough to get groceries, agreed? With that said I did say I would be taking it to the track so whats wrong with having it be capable of using the turbos to their potentail and throwing in better fuel cranking up the boost and making a ton of power once and a while? This is not a Race only car, if it was setup would be different for sure but it will take out most cars it comes acrossed, and the most important thing here is I will enjoy the hell out of it. Only point here was I am doing some due diligence to see what should work best in this situation. That said I think Im leaning to lower compression if nothing more than the timing left on the table. This has been great so far keep em coming!

Sponsored

 

[Angrey]

Oh boy. So the WHY of what Im doing here I think most can agree its a never ending debate. I think the 100k gym to do Pilates is a bit overkill. Some would argue why would you NOT build an engine when boosting even if it will be for lower hp due to octane, some would say why would you turbo if you dont intend on running e85(Newish problem btw remember e85 has been around a very short time VS the invention of the internal combustion engine which is where it all started the search for more hp has been happening since) And Finally some I am sure would say why would you turbo at all Ford has spent a zillion$s on R&D and have made a fine engine that produces great HP that gets good MPG and is reliable , leave it alone. However I have chosen I want to turbo the car. I could put the kit on my stock engine with minimal boost run 91 the car would probably be fast fun and sound great. HOWEVER I for one dont want to deal with a rod failure taking out my longblock. Also I find it strange as soon as I say 91 I get theese reactions but honestly the power this thing will make with twins on pump is more than enough to get groceries, agreed? With that said I did say I would be taking it to the track so whats wrong with having it be capable of using the turbos to their potentail and throwing in better fuel cranking up the boost and making a ton of power once and a while? This is not a Race only car, if it was setup would be different for sure but it will take out most cars it comes acrossed, and the most important thing here is I will enjoy the hell out of it. Only point here was I am doing some due diligence to see what should work best in this situation. That said I think Im leaning to lower compression if nothing more than the timing left on the table. This has been great so far keep em coming!

It's friendly so we're just bantering. I agree somewhat as I'm a fan of overengineer and under utilize. I'm shorting the shit out of my build and setup.

The part that's confusing or a little inconsistent is if you're efforts are safety and reliability, using better fuel (to me) is the smarter or more priority approach.

I'd rather have a 850 rwhp car on stock internals with the safety of E85 than a built motor on pump gas and 850 rwhp.

Both beefing up the components and running better fuel will yield reduction in catastrophic risk, but I think you'll find more people agree with me (not that I'm a fan of populism as a measure). Most tuners will NOT tune above certain arbitrary hp thresholds on pump gas. Why? Because even with a bulletproof motor, one gulp of bad fuel on a hot day and it's frownie faces for all involved.

E85 comes with drawbacks and frustration, but the entire reason "race" or specialized fuels were ever implemented was the inherent limitations and risks associated with consumer grade gasoline.

To each their own. Good luck with your build.

 

[Jackson1320]

There’s a few people making 1000whp on 93 and that was there goal but that doesn’t mean that they can’t or haven’t put in some better fuel and push it farther. I’m not sure why 1000whp on 93 seams to be everyone’s goal now days but to each his own and it is absolutely possible on a stock compression gen3. Not recommended but definitely been done

 

[K4fxd]

That 1550 HP mercury marine engine uses 7.8 to 1 compression and is warranted for 10 hours at that output level or 1 year. Whatever comes first.

They make an automotive version also. Dual overhead cams 4V....

 

[engineermike]

The OEM's have much DIFFERENT concerns and constraints than you or I or the individual owner...You are correct in that OEM's produce what's broadly appealing. Not much of what we do as enthusiasts is broadly appealing....We also don't have the same constraints with existing purchase contracts and relationships (with component manufacturers) EPA and NHTSA limitations and regulations, etc.

That's true, but imagine if you could have 1000 hp, but still retain daily-driver reliability, pass emissions, run on 93, and be quiet and easy to live with. Wouldn't that be the proverbial cat's meow?

Even Dodge advertises the Demon power numbers on race fuel.

The Demon is 9.5/1 and the Cobra Jet is 10/1. Interesting they both dropped compression even though they both make their power on race gas.

And although you're bringing up economy and range, FEW people who build an expensive, custom motor have economy anywhere near an important consideration/factor, at least not in the numbers that are on the table (if going to E85 meant 1/10th the range, it would start being a higher issue, but most people accept they're trading some mpg in exchange for other things they prioritize higher).

Yea, I mentioned 150 mile range because that's about what it would be in a supercharged E85 car, depending on driving habits. I'm surmising that most supercharged mustang owners daily their cars and most wouldn't want to fill up >once/week, especially if it meant messing around with sampling the fuel with test kits.

I've said it so many times, the biggest problem with 93 is that there is no practical way to verify the fuel's quality.

At least with E85, you can crudely test the ratio of alcohol to gasoline and get a sense of whether the fuel is acceptable.

With 93, all it takes is one bad batch to put your high hp setup at risk. And that can come from multiple harzards. Crooked fuel station owners who try to sell diluted product. "Last pump" issues with shared grades on the same nozzle. Etc.

I would argue it's actually easier to verify octane than ethanol content. Every time I fill up, I drive a few miles then log a quick WOT pull from 2500 - 4500 rpm. If the knock advance goes to +2 and stays, then I know I have true 93 in the tank. This is very similar to how Ford manages octane learning. A savvy tuner could actually build this into the tune if he wanted to take the time, and make it even safer by letting it learn octane at loads less than WOT, but I haven't gone down that path yet.

(which is exactly why the OEM's give you low compression for blown products).

Not necessarily. It's more about the knock limit. The power ceiling for any boost/spark timing combination is higher with a lower compression ratio. If you hit a knock-limit at a certain power level regardless of the boost/timing combination, the only way to get through it is to add displacement, cool the charge more, or lower compression. Ask me how I know....

I concede, there are unicorns out there that want to go through the cost and effort of customized race components only to short the total output from what it could potentially be on better fuel...You're right, it IS personal preference, I'm simply pointing out that the personal preference you're focused on is very obscure.

It appears to me that about 3/4 of those coming on here for build advice list pump gas as a requirement. You can read into that however you want, but the majority of forced induction mustang owners I run across are running pump gas.

The part that's confusing or a little inconsistent is if you're efforts are safety and reliability...

I know, right? That's what makes it challenging. It's not impossible; just not easy.

I'd rather have a 850 rwhp car on stock internals with the safety of E85 than a built motor on pump gas and 850 rwhp.

See, while I respect that, I am totally the opposite. They both make the same power but one can get gas literally anywhere. I do see the attraction to making 850 rwhp on a sealed stock engine, though; truly impressive. That was the attraction to the 2JZ's back in the day.

Most tuners will NOT tune above certain arbitrary hp thresholds on pump gas. Why? Because even with a bulletproof motor, one gulp of bad fuel on a hot day and it's frownie faces for all involved.

It all depends on how it's built and tuned. Most tuners and builders don't know how to design to OEM levels of safety, so they follow the well-trodden "known" path. However, more can clearly be done, as the GT supercar makes nearly 200 hp/liter on 93 using the same or slightly revised parts as the F150, horrible heads, and tiny cams.

 

[andrewtac]

I would argue it's actually easier to verify octane than ethanol content. Every time I fill up, I drive a few miles then log a quick WOT pull from 2500 - 4500 rpm. If the knock advance goes to +2 and stays, then I know I have true 93 in the tank.

I'd argue that my inline sensor on my return line is even easier, it bluetooths to my phone or pad, I know what is in the tank seconds after starting. I will say this method and your knock test are substandard to the test tube method; reasoning being once the gas is in the tank you are stuck with it. I don't think there is an easy way to check octane. The test tube is crude, but accurate enough to ensure a safety margin. Most of the time I measure pre-fill then verify with the sensor post-fill. If I know I am high E content (>85) in the tank and half a tank or more I won't measure as it will result in 80+ even if the E content is a little low. My normal tune is for E70.

Sponsored