Stock Rod Limit

[Livernois Motorsports]

We know from all of the testing that we have done on the platform already.

Look at all of the failed motors...they all try to push past the 25-29# point and die.

Tuning is still the integral part to keeping these motors together. That is why were able to make what we made and keep

The rods cannot take the rotational forces produced by the extra boost and RPM. The pistons have a top ringland that is too close to the piston top for the rings to survive the higher temps. Also the skirt is pretty thin for big power. The EB S550 was not made for a daily dose of 400+wtq. I would imagine (as we are not a suspension shop) that the rest of the car is not ready for that kind of constant rotational force either.

When we made 327/427 w/slicks it was only for a few passes to validate the safe limits of the car. It gets driven around on the same tune that we supply to our clients. 90% of the power that we can make is much better than a 100% broken motor. We get paid to break things for the big 3...we don't test the limits on real cars.

If the motor is breaking with the stock baby turbo...why put a larger more powerful one on? The thermally efficient limit of the system is ~340-350/440-445. The engineers built the cars parts to be harmonious. The stock parts all share the same limits.

Adequate fueling will restrict you from hitting >375/400 as well. So that is a factor to consider.

The rods are not the only thing holding you back from making power...even with meth, fmic tstat, head work, etc the internals will be melted mush.

Sponsored

 

[BGolden]

That apparently depends upon your tuning, because we made more power on our completely stock block than Golden did without failure. We would not push the stock components any further than we did. So, if you are going to hold us to the fire and pick a number...we would not push the stock internals to 350whp/425wtq. We safely made 327/427, but we would not recommend anyone daily drive a tune like that! For a driver 300/400 is probably the limit. The 2.3 is not a variant of the FoST's 2.0L. It is not fair nor accurate to compare them.

I did not know you made over 450 ft/lbs as I did, cool. I wasn't bashing I just wanted this to be a technical thread, and provide answers for people instead of selling products. I hope you can understand.

 

[BGolden]

We know from all of the testing that we have done on the platform already.

Look at all of the failed motors...they all try to push past the 25-29# point and die.

Tuning is still the integral part to keeping these motors together. That is why were able to make what we made and keep

The rods cannot take the rotational forces produced by the extra boost and RPM. The pistons have a top ringland that is too close to the piston top for the rings to survive the higher temps. Also the skirt is pretty thin for big power. The EB S550 was not made for a daily dose of 400+wtq. I would imagine (as we are not a suspension shop) that the rest of the car is not ready for that kind of constant rotational force either.

When we made 327/427 w/slicks it was only for a few passes to validate the safe limits of the car. It gets driven around on the same tune that we supply to our clients. 90% of the power that we can make is much better than a 100% broken motor. We get paid to break things for the big 3...we don't test the limits on real cars.

If the motor is breaking with the stock baby turbo...why put a larger more powerful one on? The thermally efficient limit of the system is ~340-350/440-445. The engineers built the cars parts to be harmonious. The stock parts all share the same limits.

Adequate fueling will restrict you from hitting >375/400 as well. So that is a factor to consider.

The rods are not the only thing holding you back from making power...even with meth, fmic tstat, head work, etc the internals will be melted mush.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Look at all of the failed motors...they all try to push past the 25-29# point and die.

Share more examples please...RIPs is the only one I think we have any real knowledge of...besides that one on FB whose failure was never clearly defined.

If the motor is breaking with the stock baby turbo...why put a larger more powerful one on?

Shift the powerband to the right? Less/same torque but more hp?

The thermally efficient limit of the system is ~340-350/440-445. The engineers built the cars parts to be harmonious. The stock parts all share the same limits.

"Thermally efficient limit"? Have an equation for that?

If all the stock parts shared same limits, everything would break at the exact same time, w/ the same failure modes. This is rarely, if ever, the case.

Adequate fueling will restrict you from hitting >375/400 as well. So that is a factor to consider.

Your take on this?
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=574952&postcount=666

 

[MAPerformance]

We know from all of the testing that we have done on the platform already.

Look at all of the failed motors...they all try to push past the 25-29# point and die.

Tuning is still the integral part to keeping these motors together. That is why were able to make what we made and keep

The rods cannot take the rotational forces produced by the extra boost and RPM. The pistons have a top ringland that is too close to the piston top for the rings to survive the higher temps. Also the skirt is pretty thin for big power. The EB S550 was not made for a daily dose of 400+wtq. I would imagine (as we are not a suspension shop) that the rest of the car is not ready for that kind of constant rotational force either.

When we made 327/427 w/slicks it was only for a few passes to validate the safe limits of the car. It gets driven around on the same tune that we supply to our clients. 90% of the power that we can make is much better than a 100% broken motor. We get paid to break things for the big 3...we don't test the limits on real cars.

If the motor is breaking with the stock baby turbo...why put a larger more powerful one on? The thermally efficient limit of the system is ~340-350/440-445. The engineers built the cars parts to be harmonious. The stock parts all share the same limits.

Adequate fueling will restrict you from hitting >375/400 as well. So that is a factor to consider.

The rods are not the only thing holding you back from making power...even with meth, fmic tstat, head work, etc the internals will be melted mush.

Just for comparison, here are the pistons specs from our 1050whp EVO engine compared to stock EBM pistons. This isn't saying anything, but I disagree that the pistons are a weak point on these engines. They are poorly designed on the dish, that is why we changed it on our pistons.

Crown to top ringland EVO - 6.81mm
Crown to top ringland EBM - 5.72mm
Side Skirt Thickness EVO - 3.86mm
Side Skirt Thickness EBM (Tapered design) - 3.20mm
Wrist Pin EVO - 22mm
Wrist Pin EBM - 22.5mm

With that being said, I wouldn't exactly say that the top ringland is too close to the crown nor would I say that the skirts are too thin. I will say that the piston dish and cradle (underside) isn't ideal for making big power as the piston is designed to be emissions/fuel burn focused rather than flame travel/power combustion.

Regarding your other comments on the fuel system, it is quite adequate for low ethanol content fuels which is a proven fact. However I did stress the system out to find it's limitations on Tuesday with E85 and it couldn't support more than 21psi at 5500rpms. I don't think the fuel system is going to be an issue for stock turbo, unless alternative fuels are being involved.

 

[greg hazlett]

^^ That is the way to answer a question with tech data and specifics, take note Livernois!

 

[Juben]

Just for comparison, here are the pistons specs from our 1050whp EVO engine compared to stock EBM pistons. This isn't saying anything, but I disagree that the pistons are a weak point on these engines. They are poorly designed on the dish, that is why we changed it on our pistons.

Crown to top ringland EVO - 6.81mm
Crown to top ringland EBM - 5.72mm
Side Skirt Thickness EVO - 3.86mm
Side Skirt Thickness EBM (Tapered design) - 3.20mm
Wrist Pin EVO - 22mm
Wrist Pin EBM - 22.5mm

With that being said, I wouldn't exactly say that the top ringland is too close to the crown nor would I say that the skirts are too thin. I will say that the piston dish and cradle (underside) isn't ideal for making big power as the piston is designed to be emissions/fuel burn focused rather than flame travel/power combustion.

Regarding your other comments on the fuel system, isn't quite adequate for low ethanol content fuels which is a proven fact. However I did stress the system out to find it's limitations on Tuesday with E85 and it couldn't support more than 21psi at 5500rpms. I don't think the fuel system is going to be an issue for stock turbo, unless alternative fuels are being involved.

The fueling system works just fine for E20-E30.

 

[MAPerformance]

The fueling system works just fine for E20-E30.

I still consider that low ethanol content fuel.

Also: Edit to my original post, I said "isn't adequate" when I meant is adequate.

 

[Juben]

I still consider that low ethanol content fuel.

Also: Edit to my original post, I said "isn't adequate" when I meant is adequate.

Okay, when you said "isn't", that's what confused me. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that it's more than capable of handling low E-content fuels.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Just for comparison, here are the pistons specs from our 1050whp EVO engine compared to stock EBM pistons. This isn't saying anything, but I disagree that the pistons are a weak point on these engines. They are poorly designed on the dish, that is why we changed it on our pistons.

Crown to top ringland EVO - 6.81mm
Crown to top ringland EBM - 5.72mm
Side Skirt Thickness EVO - 3.86mm
Side Skirt Thickness EBM (Tapered design) - 3.20mm
Wrist Pin EVO - 22mm
Wrist Pin EBM - 22.5mm

With that being said, I wouldn't exactly say that the top ringland is too close to the crown nor would I say that the skirts are too thin. I will say that the piston dish and cradle (underside) isn't ideal for making big power as the piston is designed to be emissions/fuel burn focused rather than flame travel/power combustion.

Regarding your other comments on the fuel system, it is quite adequate for low ethanol content fuels which is a proven fact. However I did stress the system out to find it's limitations on Tuesday with E85 and it couldn't support more than 21psi at 5500rpms. I don't think the fuel system is going to be an issue for stock turbo, unless alternative fuels are being involved.

^^ That is the way to answer a question with tech data and specifics, take note Livernois!

Take note, that you are comparing a motor that was originally designed as a naturally aspirated application in the S550, to a motor that was made for big boost, RPM and power. That is not an honest comparison. Blind data is just that...blind data. If you are going to provide tech data for a comparison make sure that it is truly comparable data.

That is the difference when you are a company that specializes in import turbo motors, you expect all turbo motors to be designed as turbo true turbo platforms. We know the ins and outs of these platforms because we specialize in all new domestic performance vehicles. We do TONS of testing and engineering for the big 3. There is nobody that offers more support for the EB line than we do. And I am not referring to BOVs and TB spacers, but actual parts. From fasteners to deck plates we engineer them all ourselves. Take the 3.5L EB motor that is actually an NA design ported over to a DI TT application. But the new 2.7L EB engine IS a true turbo application.

Also take note that we have covered the differences in the stock and our piston/rod measurements several times.

As for fueling, the EB platform as a whole from 1.5L to 3.5L all suffer from a lack of ability of the HPFP being able to keep up with the commanded fueling trim. If this were not the case why would you need methanol injection? From our WR holding EB S550 to our WR holding SHO They all run out of the ability to keep actual vs commanded fueling in line. The LPFP is not part of the problem. The issue is that the sensor that clocks the lobe of the cam that is responsible for fueling is unable to clock fast enough to get the HPFP to supply enough fuel to support both more timing and boost.

Honestly, it makes no sense how a company that is entrusted to engineer, test and re-engineer parts for the company that makes this car has less clout on this forum than a company that is new to the entire platform. That would be like having a conversation with Mickey Thompson and your local Ford wrench about tires, and treating the wrench as the more credible reference.

 

[dragonacc]

entire [/B]platform. That would be like having a conversation with Mickey Thompson and your local Ford wrench about tires, and treating the wrench as the more credible reference.

Probably didn't help that you took credit for someone else's intake and exhaust without even mentioning the companies that actually built them...

Might also help if you showed something new... WR tune only times are great but what have you done lately? You say you developed all these parts but I don't see them on your website for sale. Can people actually buy them?

Sorry, this all off topic...

P.S. I'm sure people will think that I always jump on LMS but I call it like I see it no matter who says something. Also, I just suggested to a buddy of mine that he take a look at LMS for his EB F150 so its not that I think they don't do anything right or something...

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Share more examples please...RIPs is the only one I think we have any real knowledge of...besides that one on FB whose failure was never clearly defined.

Google it, there are several examples out there. We are not here to disparage other tuning companies.

Shift the powerband to the right? Less/same torque but more hp?

What are you going to do about fueling, a completely custom meth kit? Run a street car on a high octane heavily oxygenated fuel like fuel like MS109? If we would like to continue the incongruent comparisons, look no further than the Fusion. There are several turbo swap options available, but none are able to supply adequate power due to a fueling limitation even with methanol and/or race fuel.

"Thermally efficient limit"? Have an equation for that?

The point that a non-mechanical turbo stops being able to make power without displacing the exponentially higher heat levels made with more power. Thermal efficiency of turbocharger can be calculated from the thermal efficiency of a single turbocharger by setting the flow of intake air mass through the compressor to be equal to that of the exhaust through the turbine.

If all the stock parts shared same limits, everything would break at the exact same time, w/ the same failure modes. This is rarely, if ever, the case.

Not true, are you trying to say that heat and friction are all dissipated equilaterally throughout the motor?

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Probably didn't help that you took credit for someone else's intake and exhaust without even mentioning the companies that actually built them...

Might also help if you showed something new... WR tune only times are great but what have you done lately? You say you developed all these parts but I don't see them on your website for sale. Can people actually buy them?

Sorry, this all off topic...

P.S. I'm sure people will think that I always jump on LMS but I call it like I see it no matter who says something. Also, I just suggested to a buddy of mine that he take a look at LMS for his EB F150 so its not that I think they don't do anything right or something...

We are used to being jumped all over when we say that the sky is blue. Nothing new, it happens with every new vehicle. We say that due to our testing we have found whatever and everyone argues but then when we are still beating everyone's records and producing unmatched results we finally get credit.


We cannot race on tracks that are covered in snow. We cannot break the law on city streets to appease a forum, I am sorry that we are not located in a more temperate climate.
As for your first point, when have you purchased our products, compared them to the products that you think we had nothing to do with and produced results? All you do is critique baselessly.

 

[arghx7]

If the motor is breaking with the stock baby turbo...why put a larger more powerful one on?

Less backpressure, assuming you have a larger hotside. The engine doesn't have to work as hard to make the same output.

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

Less backpressure, assuming you have a larger hotside. The engine doesn't have to work as hard to make the same output.

But a larger actually takes more RPM to create power, therefore the motor is working harder to create the same power. That thinking is what led to the death of the EVO. Look at how the EB cars make power down low. The Evo has always been notorious for its turbo lag. The EB cars do not have this same issue. They make tons of power at very low RPM ranges when compared to other turbocharged applications.

Sponsored