Resonator Delete for Performance

[TEXAS HEAT]

Yeah the downpipe would probably be the biggest overall gains, but geez this stock catback:

Thanks for posting that! Seeing that makes me realize that there are some gains in flow to be had by eliminating the resonator, but only to be choked off yet again by the mufflers. Perhaps another example of the great extent Ford went to in neutering the Ecoboost mustang.

TBH, that's what is awesome about turbocharged cars. Always so much room left on the table. If Ford would've made these cars perform to their potential from the factory, it wouldn't be any fun modifying them.

:ford:

Reminds me of back in the day when adding a 3" exhaust, a conical K&N air filter and Intercooler to an OMNI GLH was a recipe for 13's. The turbo glory days!

Sponsored

 

[doulos4jc]

Thanks for posting that! Seeing that makes me realize that there are some gains in flow to be had by eliminating the resonator, but only to be choked off yet again by the mufflers. Perhaps another example of the great extent Ford went to in neutering the Ecoboost mustang.

TBH, that's what is awesome about turbocharged cars. Always so much room left on the table. If Ford would've made these cars perform to their potential from the factory, it wouldn't be any fun modifying them.

:ford:

Those gains in flow and potential HP are after the turbo has effectively been castrated by the stock down pipe. Are even pricy full cat back systems worth the price of admission?

 

[TEXAS HEAT]

Those gains in flow and potential HP are after the turbo has effectively been castrated by the stock down pipe. Are even pricy full cat back systems worth the price of admission?

Which is the ultimate purpose of this thread... It would be interesting to see a graphical flow comparison of the gases exiting the stock exhaust system versus a multitude of aftermarket systems. You know, for Science!

 

[Juben]

I think you'll get the least gains with the resonator versus the cat or mufflers. However, that's not to say there aren't gains to be had with a res delete, but I'd just look at the others first.

One of the big things with deleting the resonator is dropping 40+ pounds of weight. It's huge and heavy. If you want to drop weight and it not sound like pooh, put a straight through muffler, like a Magnaflow or Borla, back in it's place. It'll provide the same effect to an extent and flow better.

 

[MagnaFlow]

Texas, if you do decide to change out your stock resonator, wed be happy to help you with the correct sizing for your needs. We offer a handful of single-in dual-out units that work great for the EBs. Please feel free to shoot us a PM anytime you would like!

 

[doulos4jc]

Texas, if you do decide to change out your stock resonator, wed be happy to help you with the correct sizing for your needs. We offer a handful of single-in dual-out units that work great for the EBs. Please feel free to shoot us a PM anytime you would like!

What about a single in/single out resonator?...basically a dual exhuast delete.

 

[MagnaFlow]

What about a single in/single out resonator?...basically a dual exhuast delete.

Yes! We offer just about every type and size of muffler you can think of. ;)

 

[doulos4jc]

A muffler in place of the stock resonator would work?

 

[pwmin]

A muffler in place of the stock resonator would work?

Sure. I had a 3" Magnaflow single in/out muffler replace my resonator and finished it off with 3" piping and no mufflers. It's sounds good (to me) and isn't loud.

 

[LethalPerformance]

We've got our resonator delete kits on sale for $203.99 shipped.

Here's the link to them and a flyer for our other Ecoboost parts we have on sale right now.
http://www.lethalperformance.com/lethal-performance-2015-ecoboost-mustang-y-pipe-resonator-delete-kit.html

 

[TheLion]

Thanks for posting that! Seeing that makes me realize that there are some gains in flow to be had by eliminating the resonator, but only to be choked off yet again by the mufflers. Perhaps another example of the great extent Ford went to in neutering the Ecoboost mustang.

TBH, that's what is awesome about turbocharged cars. Always so much room left on the table. If Ford would've made these cars perform to their potential from the factory, it wouldn't be any fun modifying them.

:ford:

Reminds me of back in the day when adding a 3" exhaust, a conical K&N air filter and Intercooler to an OMNI GLH was a recipe for 13's. The turbo glory days!

It's about sales. Some of you may have read Glenn G's (at least I think it was him) thread on the eX Ford 2.3L development project engineer. There was an internal project requirement to maintain a minimum of 125hp gap between the EB and V8.

Why? Because business management determined (correct or not) that closing that gap would risk or cut into V8 sales. Higher tier products usually have a bigger profit margin which helps off set their lower sales volume. The EB is exactly $7k less than the V8 on Ford's website, that's quite a cost margin difference given that the primary differences in the V8 are mostly concentrated around the engine and transmission.

Here are some excerpts from the interview which I actually saved (I usually save articles I find very interesting and this is very unique).

I told him about the blown motors on this forum and he asked me how many had stock intercoolers. As far as I'm aware no engines
have blown with upgraded ones! His exact words “I would expect a cooler of this size and design to support 250 hp at relatively low
boost. At 310 and 18 psi on a small turbine like this, this is a danger to the engine”.
“The Primary concern developing this part was cost, nothing else, not even performance.

Interestingly enough, the part he found most laughable was the downpipe.
“I know this well, when we had to make a crap turbo not overboost or were forced to run a larger setup because they were already
in place we’d mess with the downpipe. It doesn’t cost much to do and we felt ok because any car guy with a welder could make his
own plus you can actually get some emissions benefits by using an oversized cat and slowing down the exhaust flow”
“1st no need to neck down the turbine outlet from 3 inches to 2.5, From a manufacturing perspective the cost in negligible, It helps
the turbo spin up a bit faster which is nice and helps maintain some post turbine back pressure which will limit boost if you don’t
have enough wastegate.”

"If I were in charge of the project from inception, but had to use the same turbo this engine would make 360 hp and save around $1
per car over the current design. If I was not limited on turbo this would be 400 hp at the same manufacture cost, and get better gas
milage on the EPA cycle, Emissions would be slightly worse unless I spent 50 or 60 cents on a better cat and you could not run 87 at all. That's as far as I'd push the Hypereutectic pistons on a motor. If the fuel system has the capacity, $20 per car which would
translate to around $1000 to the purchase price if we passed it all to the customer would be 450470
hp on 93 only with forged
pistons, 500 on a short over boost function. I can guarantee you that will not exist as long as the top trim level engine is naturally
aspirated."

Isn't it interesting that with just a new PCM software and FMIC these cars are putting out around 350~375 at the crank (I believe his power levels are referring to crank HP)? The stock rods and crank will start to fail around 425 wtq or translated to crank torque at around 490 ft-bls. Right in line with what he stated.

Also note that the V8 makes 435 HP, the EB makes 310 HP (crank)...a difference of exactly 125...

 

[TheLion]

On a side note: Hypereutectic pistons are stronger than more common cast aluminum pistons and used in many high performance applications. They are not as strong as forged pistons, but are much lower cost due to being cast. Source: wikipedia.

I wasn't familiar with Hypereutectic pistons but they appear to be run of the mill in modern NA engines and low boost TDI engines. Which also explains why 99% of EB engine failures among the performance oriented communities are cracked pistons: The biggest drawback of adding silicon to pistons is that the piston becomes more brittle as the ratio of silicon to aluminum is increased. This makes the piston more susceptible to cracking if the engine experiences pre-ignition or detonation.

 

[ypena02]

It's about sales. Some of you may have read Glenn G's (at least I think it was him) thread on the eX Ford 2.3L development project engineer. There was an internal project requirement to maintain a minimum of 125hp gap between the EB and V8.

Why? Because business management determined (correct or not) that closing that gap would risk or cut into V8 sales. Higher tier products usually have a bigger profit margin which helps off set their lower sales volume. The EB is exactly $7k less than the V8 on Ford's website, that's quite a cost margin difference given that the primary differences in the V8 are mostly concentrated around the engine and transmission.

Here are some excerpts from the interview which I actually saved (I usually save articles I find very interesting and this is very unique).

I told him about the blown motors on this forum and he asked me how many had stock intercoolers. As far as I'm aware no engines
have blown with upgraded ones! His exact words “I would expect a cooler of this size and design to support 250 hp at relatively low
boost. At 310 and 18 psi on a small turbine like this, this is a danger to the engine”.
“The Primary concern developing this part was cost, nothing else, not even performance.

Interestingly enough, the part he found most laughable was the downpipe.
“I know this well, when we had to make a crap turbo not overboost or were forced to run a larger setup because they were already
in place we’d mess with the downpipe. It doesn’t cost much to do and we felt ok because any car guy with a welder could make his
own plus you can actually get some emissions benefits by using an oversized cat and slowing down the exhaust flow”
“1st no need to neck down the turbine outlet from 3 inches to 2.5, From a manufacturing perspective the cost in negligible, It helps
the turbo spin up a bit faster which is nice and helps maintain some post turbine back pressure which will limit boost if you don’t
have enough wastegate.”

"If I were in charge of the project from inception, but had to use the same turbo this engine would make 360 hp and save around $1
per car over the current design. If I was not limited on turbo this would be 400 hp at the same manufacture cost, and get better gas
milage on the EPA cycle, Emissions would be slightly worse unless I spent 50 or 60 cents on a better cat and you could not run 87 at all. That's as far as I'd push the Hypereutectic pistons on a motor. If the fuel system has the capacity, $20 per car which would
translate to around $1000 to the purchase price if we passed it all to the customer would be 450470
hp on 93 only with forged
pistons, 500 on a short over boost function. I can guarantee you that will not exist as long as the top trim level engine is naturally
aspirated."

Isn't it interesting that with just a new PCM software and FMIC these cars are putting out around 350~375 at the crank (I believe his power levels are referring to crank HP)? The stock rods and crank will start to fail around 425 wtq or translated to crank torque at around 490 ft-bls. Right in line with what he stated.

Also note that the V8 makes 435 HP, the EB makes 310 HP (crank)...a difference of exactly 125...

These quotes were from his former Engineering professor, not an ex Ford 2.3L development project engineer.

Also, where did you hear that there was an internal project requirement to maintain a minimum of 125hp gap between the EB and V8?

 

[TheLion]

These quotes were from his former Engineering professor, not an ex Ford 2.3L development project engineer.

Also, where did you hear that there was an internal project requirement to maintain a minimum of 125hp gap between the EB and V8?

Thanks guys, not done yet. There is alot more. I recorded our whole conversation and it takes me alot of time to write down the
important bits. The take away from the conversation was not that the Eco would be faster than the GT if they didn't sand bag it, It
would not be, nor the cheap parts. It's that Ford actually spent money to slow it down to maintain that 125 hp advantage. It would be
nowhere near that otherwise.

Also of note, his former engineering professor worked for Ford Global...otherwise how would he possible know all the details of why? We can determine that his part is poorly designed or that part is under sized, but determining the details of why all these things were done that specifically isn't something one would typically just come from speculation.

when I was working at (he asked me not to say but it was a Global
Manufacturer with a division in Germany) we would be forced by management to use a more expensive, smaller turbo to keep a
predefined distance from a larger motor. One of the reasons I left was having a beancounter tell me my engine was making too
much power, make me redesign and de tune it to run like garbage and complain when I went overbudget .”

 

[HappySquirrel]

Thanks guys, not done yet. There is alot more. I recorded our whole conversation and it takes me alot of time to write down the
important bits. The take away from the conversation was not that the Eco would be faster than the GT if they didn't sand bag it, It
would not be, nor the cheap parts. It's that Ford actually spent money to slow it down to maintain that 125 hp advantage. It would be
nowhere near that otherwise.

Also of note, his former engineering professor worked for Ford Global...otherwise how would he possible know all the details of why? We can determine that his part is poorly designed or that part is under sized, but determining the details of why all these things were done that specifically isn't something one would typically just come from speculation.

when I was working at (he asked me not to say but it was a Global
Manufacturer with a division in Germany) we would be forced by management to use a more expensive, smaller turbo to keep a
predefined distance from a larger motor. One of the reasons I left was having a beancounter tell me my engine was making too
much power, make me redesign and de tune it to run like garbage and complain when I went overbudget .”

I think the information presented by Glenn G which you have quoted here is very insightful. HOWEVER, I agree with ypena02 that it should not necessarily be taken as gospel. Firstly, we don't have direct confirmation of this guy's bona fides (not that I think Glenn is lying). Secondly, and more importantly, even if it all checks out that doesn't mean he's correct on all of these points. My college engineering professors were a mix of well-experienced former industry professionals and educational lifers who couldn't engineer their way out of a box. This gentleman's description points more to the former, but we shouldn't just assume everything he says is totally correct.

In particular, I am somewhat perplexed by his certainly of analysis on every topic presented to him. Is this guy really that much of an expert on every system in the powertrain? The statements that it could make 360 hp while costing $1 less or 400 hp at the same cost are eyebrow raisers. He seems awfully confident that he could correctly utilize a bigger turbo and all the necessary modifications to increase power by 40 hp while only increasing costs by a buck. Is that possible? Hell, I don't know (not my field of engineering). MAAAAAAAYBE. And I understand that he probably wasn't presenting these assertions as proven fact or anything, but I would simply reiterate that they're wide-ranging suggestions offered by an educator we don't personally know and should be treated with a grain of salt.
:cheers:

Sponsored