Hopefully, my next car.

Bonham

You can do what I once did, and build your own Boss out of a cheaper Mustang.

I've been toying with the idea. Used to work with a hydro crew on occation (privately owned boat) and the guy who built the engine wants to build one for me if I build my own '69 Mach I (normally he charges people $5k labor, plus parts, to build an engine). I'm completely debt free at the moment with a reliable car (98 Eclipse) and have been resisting the urge since I want to build my own house while I'm in a position to attempt it. I would buy one in a second, so that I don't get used to not having a car payment, but it might throw a monkey wrench into the loan for a house.

audiobliss

I'll tell y'all what I've been all twisted up in a pretzel about, droolin' and dreamin' over for the past week. I tell ya, I'm a-gonna do me one of these ONE of these days; may hafta wait about 20 years, though....:(

Factory Five Racing Mark III Roadster (Cobra replicas)

audiobliss

She's just sooooo BEAUTIFUL!!! I can't believe a car could be so gorgeous; and then the thought of driving a piece of history (well, a copy of history). And ya can't forget stuffin' an engine under the hood and havin' that wonderful sound comin' in stereo through the pipes!!!:D

I can't decide if I'd want to build my own engine or go with one of the ones that FFR recommends. I've looked at ROUSH's 327; 410hp and 390lb-ft of torque....ain't too shabby. Would like more, but ya know; can only use but so much in a 2200lb car.:D

Joelsbass

ya gotta love the shelby cobra... damn but those are sexy cars...

no that's not my dodge (i wish it were, maybe for the next one lol) i've got a 99 Dakota Sport club cab... looks like this un...



4x2, v6, auto...

i love my baby

PolkThug

Originally posted by Bonham
I would buy one in a second, so that I don't get used to not having a car payment, but it might throw a monkey wrench into the loan for a house.

Learn a lesson from the Thug. Get your house loan first!! Car payments will make your debt to income ratio look bad (or not as good as it could be). I was so borderline that if I would have had a smaller car payment, I would not have needed to put money down on my house.

Regards,
PT

sowen010599

Originally posted by audiobliss
She's just sooooo BEAUTIFUL!!! I can't believe a car could be so gorgeous; and then the thought of driving a piece of history (well, a copy of history). And ya can't forget stuffin' an engine under the hood and havin' that wonderful sound comin' in stereo through the pipes!!!:D

I can't decide if I'd want to build my own engine or go with one of the ones that FFR recommends. I've looked at ROUSH's 327; 410hp and 390lb-ft of torque....ain't too shabby. Would like more, but ya know; can only use but so much in a 2200lb car.:D

That car just screams for something unique. The whole old/new thing. I'm thinking a single turbo, SFI-injected 333 DSS stroker with electronic boost control. 8 psi on the pump, get to the track, fill 'er up with Sunoco, fill the Snow Systems cooler with alchy, crank the boost to 25 psi, and lay down some 8s on slicks. Should be a good 500hp daily driver with 8 psi. Run about 850 if you turn up the wick.

I been down the blue oval road many times, need any advice, lemme know.

audiobliss

sowen, that's great to know; bet I could learn a lot from you; would really enjoy it, too! However, since I'm only 17 and planning on goin' to college and gettin' a career goin', lol, it'll be a while before I'll be able to do anything like this. However, when I do, I'll want to use a naturally aspirated engine; there's somethin' about raw power and torque from a naturally-aspirated engine...ya can't beat it!!! (the feel of it, that is)

Being not extremely knowledgeable about EVERYTHING about cars (I'm tryin' ), please explain what you meant exactly with that engine and the stuff for it. SFI?! is that single fuel injection? never heard of it, but I'm guessin' that maybe it's like a throttle body? dumps in the fuel at the intake and then it's divided between the cylinders? 333 bein' displacement? DSS...what's that mean?

Run about 850 if you turn up the wick

you mean 850 horse with more boost?!?!:eek: how much more boost?

I been down the blue oval road many times, need any advice, lemme know.

blue oval road?

Sorry for my ignorance.....would like to get rid of it!!:D

Thanks!

Sami

Originally posted by audiobliss
you mean 850 horse with more boost?!?!:eek: how much more boost?

Enough to make it say BOOM!

sowen010599

333 or 331 depending on who built it. But yeah displacement.......cubic inches. DSS is a company, they build racing engines. SFI is Sequential Fuel Injection. There is at least one injector per cylinder, and at least one throttle body.

NA (naturally aspirated) has no real advantages. First off, because there is no power adder (nitrous, supercharger, turbo), you are relying on the motor alone for power. So right off the bat, you are gonna have to spin the thing to the moon to make any power with it. It will have almost no vacuum pressure (forget power brakes) lope like a wounded dog, and be totally un-streetable. Most NA motors don't touch their peak HP till they are close to 7K RPM. And almost no low end torque to speak of. The only way to get serious torque that's usable from any motor is down low, in the 3k RPM range. You do that with a roots style blower, or a turbo. Both make unreal torque. I run twins on my mustang. The best part about a boosted motor is you can build a motor with nice street manners when you're not on boost. So the care is still drivable.

Check out http://www.turbomustangs.com/index2.htm

With turbo's, you can turn the boost up or down with an electronic boost control while you drive the car! So, you can literally be driving the car around enjoying the day, pull up next to a crotch-rocket, bump up the boost, and leave him standing there looking like an idiot. 850 would not be a problem with a turbo. I started with NA, then nitrous, then superchargers, now turbos, and I will never go back!

Blue Oval, as in the Ford emblem, you know, the blue oval with FORD in the middle.


Boom? Hehe, sure, boom. Riiiiiight. As long as you overbuild the bottom end, it'll take it all day, every day.

audiobliss

ahh, thanks for clearing some of that up. The only reason I would want a naturally aspirated engine is..., um,......idk....lol; I just like the 'idea' of naturally aspirated; doin' it without any help. And, I wasn't lookin' to do anything near as radical as what you're talking about. However,......twin turbos,....electronic boost control......sounds awesome!!! How well do turbos work with carburetors? I think I'd probably prefer EFI.......I've always thought I'd want a carburetor,....just the 'sound' and 'feel' of a carburetor.....but there are a lot of benefits of EFI......I'll hafta look up SFI and see what I can find about it....interesting.

How much money are you talking for a 333 DSS with SFI and a turbo with electronic boost control? Sounds so awesome...I bet it could get expensive. Do they make their own blocks? Or what do they use? What is the compression, usually? If I turned up the boost, wouldn't that increase compression? So I'd hafta make sure I was running some pretty high octane fuel before I turned it up much, right? And, driveable....I like that......very much. How much intercooler would I hafta have? Bet that'd cost a pretty penny...

When you say you went to nitrous -> superchargers -> turbos, you don't mean you have all that on your engine, right? You replaced the stuff, right? I have a friend who's soooo wantin' to put a supercharger AND a turbocharger on his car......that just doesn't make any sense to me....

Sorry about the lil' Blue Oval .....not much of a Furd fan. However, thinking about this repli-Cobra so much, I've actually CONSIDERED building a Ford engine for it.

Thanks!

Sami

Originally posted by sowen010599
Boom? Hehe, sure, boom. Riiiiiight. As long as you overbuild the bottom end, it'll take it all day, every day.

That's a different thing. Turning up the boost on an engine that is built to handle 8psi is asking for trouble. A lot of people do it on stock bottoms and while they run good for a while they do not last. (going from 1bar to 2bar for example, not from 1bar to 1.2bar)

audiobliss, putting both SC and turbo to a car requires a lot of engineering and nobody has been able to make a reliable solution.

sowen010599

No I didn't run all that stuff at the same time. It's an upgrade path, just like audio.

Turbo's with a carb. It works, I have seen it done. But, it's a lot more difficult, and much harder to get right.

Technically, ambient pressure at sea level is 1.01 BAR, 14.7 PSI. Usually gear-heads leave off the first BAR. So if one told you they were running boost at one BAR, the would be close to 15 PSI of boost, but actually, about 2 BAR.

What I like to see is someone build a motor for 1,000 HP running at 850. Overbuilding is always the way to go. Stock bottom-ends with huffers do make for good grenades though.

Turbo with a supercharger, ummmmm no. A turbo or a SC with nitrous, that works. Turbo's vs. superchargers. Well, there's no free lunch, no free HP. The bigger problem with superchargers is they have a high parasitic loss. Simply put, they are belt driven, they take HP away from the crank. And it's a big loss too. Lets say you wanted to make 1000hp. With a supercharger, the motor would need to be making 1300hp because the supercharger would be using 300 of that just to spin it! Turbo's do have "some" loss from back-pressure in the exhaust system but not nearly on the level of superchargers. So turbo's with a supercharger is simply stupid.

Minimum $10k to get started $15 to do it right. Some pro cars running in the 7 second range spend over $100k.

Most turbo kits come with an inter-cooler. You would need a custom made one for that car, maybe $450.

Turning up the boost does increase compression, but that's not the big problem. The problem is heat. What happens when you compress a gas (air)? It gets hot, right? Well, that's what a turbo or SC does, it compresses air. That's why we use inter-coolers, to cool that air back down. But when that air fuel charge makes it into the cylinder, it's gonna be pretty warm. The compression of the piston stroke compresses that charge even more, making it even hotter. If it gets hot enough, it lights itself off, spark-plug or not. That causes detonation, the real killer. High octane fuels are a band-aid for detonation. They slow the process down, letting you run more hot boost, without so much detonation. The other way to beat detonation is a making the air even colder. Some use small shots of nitrous because it's super cold. I use a system from Snow, along with the standard air/air inter-cooler. It injects methanol into the intake. Methanol gets very, VERY cold when it evaporates. That lets me run a higher boost level without detonation problems. I know several who run up to 17psi on super-unleaded without problems.

Not a Furd fan eh? You dork, LMAO. Man, that's harsh. You at least have to get the spelling right. It's Ford!

Sami

Originally posted by sowen010599
So turbo's with a supercharger is simply stupid.

The idea is to work them sequantial, not parallel. SC at the low end while the big turbo isn't getting enough exhaust, then release it once the turbo spins up. The only problem is the practical implementation...

Now they are working on electrically assisted turbos. It's all about the powerband, at least for us road race guys.

Sami

Originally posted by sowen010599
I know several who run up to 17psi on super-unleaded without problems.

93 octane and 1.3bar (19psi) here, 1.1bar on daily driving. Stock boost is about 0.7bar.

The late F1 turbos, 1.5l displacement and 1500hp. That's 1000hp a litre. Running on 80%+ on toluene.

sowen010599

Sami,

That's why we use twins. One is trimmed for low-end, the other for top-end. With a properly trimmed twin setup, you're on boost at 2k. Most centrifugal SC's don't reach full boost till about 4,500. Now a positive displacement SC (like a roots), they are on boost off idle. The idea of using a centrifugal SC (Vortech, ATI, Powerdyne, etc) paired with a turbo is ludicrous.

F1's also spin to a bazillion RPM and make a half ounce of torque.

Sami

Originally posted by sowen010599
Sami,

That's why we use twins. One is trimmed for low-end, the other for top-end.

A lot of problems with that setup too. My car came stock with parallel twins and that's the way I'll keep them. Don't need more than 600hp so two small turbos will do the trick.

audiobliss

Ehh, I've been thinking about it and I do believe that's just a little more than I need for a 2200lb. car, ya know? I think I've about decided on this ROUSH engine I mentioned before; what do ya think of that? It makes enough, well almost (410 & 390), and should make for a streetable ride, no?

Here's a link to the ROUSH 327. I've also thought about their 427. I'm kinda surprised at how much these engines hafta spool-up before they're making any hp; is that normal? I'm real happy with the torque, though.

Thanks.

audiobliss

hey, yeah, what about that ROUSH engine.......lol


thought I'd bump this up.......:D

Jstas

Originally posted by audiobliss

Here's a link to the ROUSH 327. I've also thought about their 427. I'm kinda surprised at how much these engines hafta spool-up before they're making any hp; is that normal? I'm real happy with the torque, though.

Thanks.

Because it's a 215cc intake runner running into a 60cc combustion chamber with intake valves of 2.05 inches topped off with a 770CFM carburetor. A 327 has a standard bore size of 4.002 with a 1/4 inch increase in stroke. That's alot of air running into a relativly small combustion chamber so it takes some time before the engine reaches a high enough volumetric efficiency to be able to use all that air entering the engine.

It'd be easier to see how the engine is performing and where if you could get cam specs but knowing the way Jack Roush works, you won't know those unless you get the engine torn down and blue printed which is some major bucks to have done.

It should also be noted that the engine has an Edelbrock Victor Jr intake which is a single plane manifold. Single planes operate like a pseudo-tunnel ram intake where as a dual-plane will not flow as well but it will bring those torque and HP number well down the RPM line.

audiobliss

ummm....., uhhh....., duhhhh......, uhhhh.......lol......wow.....I hope to know that much one day......

Here's what I got out of that: For some reason the fact that it's cramming a lot of air into the small cumbustion chambers, it's not gonna make a lot of power 'til it gets to spinnin'. Also, if it had a dual-plane manifold (what does that mean?) it wouldn't work as well (in what respect?), but the HP & torque would come on tap quicker.

So, you're caught up in this car stuff, too, eh?

Thanks.

Sami

Originally posted by audiobliss
Ehh, I've been thinking about it and I do believe that's just a little more than I need for a 2200lb. car, ya know? I think I've about decided on this ROUSH engine I mentioned before; what do ya think of that? It makes enough, well almost (410 & 390), and should make for a streetable ride, no?

What you should be concerned about more than making power is how the motor will distribute weight. If it is heavy and sit on the nose of a 2200lb car it will most likely ruin the weight balance. Understeer is a ****.

PolkThug

My wife rocks!! I mentioned my crazy idea of ordering a new stang and having it directly shipped to Steeda for the mods. Then, we fly down to Florida pick it up and drive it back to KC.

And she agreed!?!

I can already feel the might of the Whipple twin-screw.... (sounds naughty, doesn't it?)

jcaut

Too much weight sitting on the nose would tend to make the car UNDERsteer, no? Like a front-driver.

-Jason

Jstas

Originally posted by Sami
What you should be concerned about more than making power is how the motor will distribute weight. If it is heavy and sit on the nose of a 2200lb car it will most likely ruin the weight balance. Oversteer is a ****.

Don't go confusing people. Having the engine mounted farther back, behind the front axle, is better for weight distribution when you are going road racing. It is not a guarantee of proper handling characteristics though. I have seen "nose heavy" Mustangs and Camaros throughly hand many more "balanced" cars thier asses on silver platters in competition on road courses. Of course, that isn't a dictation of common events. There is alot that factors into stuff there. It is just merely an illustration of how lop-sided and inaccurate common generalities can be. Not to say they are wrong either but handling is more about how the suspension handles the weight of the vehicle and how the forces acting on that weight is distributed across the suspension.

One type of racing where mounting the engine farther forward will help is drag racing. It helps with weight transfer and chassis loading in drag racing where traction and straight-line speed is king.

If you are going oval racing, engine location can play a very large part in how much speed you can carry through a turn and how late you can brake into a turn to take a tighter or more aggressive racing line.

A neutrally balanced car will "rotate" through a turn IF (and that's a BIG if) the suspension is setup correctly. I have watched Griggs Racing Suspension equipped Fox-chassied Mustangs hound Porsches, Vipers and Ferraris all day long at SCCA events. Even with the added rear weight of the suspension parts, the cars will still have a fairly heavy front weight bias for a race car. Yet they will go around turns just as well as any other car on the track if not better. Add to that the benefit of a torque curve a freight train would envy from thier small and light 5.0L V8's and you have a formidable apponent on any race track.

It's not nearly as simple as just sticking an engine inbetween your front and rear axles.

audiobliss

Yeah, I had thought about weight balance before, but FFR (Factory Five Racing) who makes this kit is recommending these two engines; so, I assume that means that the balance will be ok. FFR has a racing class just for the roadsters, and from reading on their website it seems to me that it ought to handle well.

Sami

Originally posted by Jstas
Don't go confusing people.

How am I confusing him? You don't agree that putting a heavy engine on a light car isn't an easy task? I know it isn't a simple equation as a lot of things that play a part in it but throwing off the balance of the car is NOT a good way to start.

Simply choosing an engine that produces the most power and fits inside the engine bay?

p.s. I drive a noseheavy AWD car that has a slight tendency to oversteers, I need to get more track time to decide whether to keep it that way or fix it. If it was RWD then I would definately fix it.

audiobliss

PolkThug, congratulaions!! That sounds great. Are they going to be modding a '05 Mustang? Wonder what they'll do to it....

Sami

Originally posted by jcaut
Too much weight sitting on the nose would tend to make the car UNDERsteer, no? Like a front-driver.

Yes, it was a typo on my part, I meant understeer and typed oversteer.

audiobliss

understeer is where it plows through the turn like a FWD car, right?

Sami

Originally posted by audiobliss
understeer is where it plows through the turn like a FWD car, right?

Yes. In understeer front wheels are the first losing traction while cornering and in oversteer it is the rear wheels.