what's needed for 300 rwhp - Page 2 - TCCoA Forums

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 90 (permalink) Old 02-26-2009, 06:08 PM
5th Gear Poster
 
954.6tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Age: 31
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderstruck95 View Post
Get a used PI 5.4, add 270 cams, choose an intake, and get a tune. THIS WILL GIVE YOU 300+ HP.

Ed
94 Thunderbird 4.6 PI




954.6tbird is offline  
post #32 of 90 (permalink) Old 02-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Moderator & Teksid Whore
Super Moderator
 
guitar maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Laredo, Texas
Age: 37
Posts: 11,923
Send a message via MSN to guitar maestro Send a message via Yahoo to guitar maestro
those dont have stock PI heads, they have ported PI heads.....im talking stock longblock, stock pi heads....try again
guitar maestro is offline  
post #33 of 90 (permalink) Old 02-26-2009, 08:42 PM
WOT Junkie and avid corn burner
 
Mgino96tbird46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 3,723
I'd stay with the 4.6 to keep things simple, ya know? The 4.6 has a lot of potential. I agree, if you want more cubic inches, bore it and or sleeve it. The formula that has usually won races the best is big bore, short stroke. This is optimal for high revving, high horsepower motors. The 4.6 is a very square motor, that is, the stroke is pretty much the same as the bore. The 5.4, unless supercharged or quad cammed, is best for towing. The stroke is longer than the bore, which is great for torque. See, I pay attention in my mechanical engineering classes.

Michael M. ASE P2 Automobile Parts Specialist.

1996 Thunderbird LX. Gone, but not forgotten Oct 1995-March 24 2016

1985 Mustang GT. modified stock Holley 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 5 speed, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch.

1998 Mustang GT premium. Auto, stock, and slow. Daily beater.
Mgino96tbird46 is offline  
post #34 of 90 (permalink) Old 02-26-2009, 10:50 PM
Veteran Poster
 
Blade Runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Katy, TX
Age: 37
Posts: 740
Stuff a 6.8 liter Triton V10 under the hood? LOL

1997 Laser Red Thunderbird LX V8, grey cloth, third cat replaced with X-pipe, SLP Loudmouth 1's, 2.25" duals, (loud as all hell)
Blade Runner is offline  
post #35 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-07-2009, 06:52 PM
WOT Junkie and avid corn burner
 
Mgino96tbird46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 3,723
How about a GT500 motor? I think that would be righteous. Expensive? Yes. Effective? Hell yeah!

Michael M. ASE P2 Automobile Parts Specialist.

1996 Thunderbird LX. Gone, but not forgotten Oct 1995-March 24 2016

1985 Mustang GT. modified stock Holley 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 5 speed, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch.

1998 Mustang GT premium. Auto, stock, and slow. Daily beater.
Mgino96tbird46 is offline  
post #36 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-07-2009, 07:09 PM
Slightly Disjointed
Super Moderator
 
XR7-4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roselle IL
Age: 28
Posts: 15,395
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to XR7-4.6
Go ahead, were all waiting for the tech article

-Matt
XR7-4.6 is offline  
post #37 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-07-2009, 07:16 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
twin turbo 281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,624
Send a message via MSN to twin turbo 281
how about a built up navi 5.4 with 20lbs of boost and it can be done on milder budget say 10-15K if you were doing the work

2x95 cougars to the scapper
97 F250 psd 4x4 dd twin charged
48 Gmc Detroit diesel 453t twin sticked
45 Chevy 451 detroit twin sticked
51 Mack A51T restoration
twin turbo 281 is offline  
post #38 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-07-2009, 11:43 PM
WOT Junkie and avid corn burner
 
Mgino96tbird46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by XR7-4.6 View Post
Go ahead, were all waiting for the tech article
It was just an idea.

Michael M. ASE P2 Automobile Parts Specialist.

1996 Thunderbird LX. Gone, but not forgotten Oct 1995-March 24 2016

1985 Mustang GT. modified stock Holley 4180C, Weiand Street Warrior intake manifold, equal length headers, true dual exhaust, 5 speed, 3.55:1 8.8'' rear end, Ford Racing 10.5" clutch.

1998 Mustang GT premium. Auto, stock, and slow. Daily beater.
Mgino96tbird46 is offline  
post #39 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 12:26 AM
Moderator & Teksid Whore
Super Moderator
 
guitar maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Laredo, Texas
Age: 37
Posts: 11,923
Send a message via MSN to guitar maestro Send a message via Yahoo to guitar maestro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgino96tbird46 View Post
How about a GT500 motor? I think that would be righteous. Expensive? Yes. Effective? Hell yeah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
how about a built up navi 5.4 with 20lbs of boost and it can be done on milder budget say 10-15K if you were doing the work
can both of you re-read what the thread starter stated in his first post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by transam396 View Post
Like it states I was wondering what would be required to get 300 rwhp on a NA build?
im sure you all want to compare the size of your E-penises by seeing who can conjur up the most elaborate 'dream motor', but lets keep this on topic shall we?
guitar maestro is offline  
post #40 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 09:40 AM
PostWhore
 
Maic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Houston
Age: 47
Posts: 1,309
Maybe this will work or be and option down the Road. I got the Engine swap still ahead of me(some Day) and locking for approx. 340HP N/A.
Note: I did not research the Following any Further @ the moment !

2008 Ford Explorer Performance & Efficiency Standard Features
- 4,605 cc 4.6 liters V 8 front engine with 90.2 mm bore, 90.0 mm stroke, 9.8 compression ratio, overhead cam, variable valve timing/camshaft and three valves per cylinder engine code
- Unleaded fuel 87
- Multi-point injection fuel system
- 22.5 gallon main unleaded fuel tank 18.7
- Power: 218 kW , 292 HP SAE @ 5,750 rpm; 300 ft lb , 407 Nm @ 3,950 rpm


-Maic

Maic.


My idea of "help from above"... Is a sniper on the Roof
Maic is offline  
post #41 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 09:51 AM
PostWhore
 
Maic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Houston
Age: 47
Posts: 1,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by transam396 View Post
Like it states I was wondering what would be required to get 300 rwhp on a NA build? It would be going in a 95 T-Bird

This is not something that is gonna happen in the next lil bit but eventually I would like to try to reach this goal...

I know that otherthings would have to be looked at first but i would kinda like to start planning this out,

Also not looking to do a 32v swap maybe explorer swap
The first production Modular engine was the 4.6 L (4601 cc, 281 CID) 2-valve SOHC V8 introduced in the 1991 Lincoln Town Car.

Over the years, the 4.6 has been offered in 2-valve SOHC, 3-valve SOHC, and 4-valve DOHC versions. It has also been produced with both iron and aluminum blocks. The 4.6 Ls bore and stroke are nearly square at 90.2 mm (3.552 in) and 90 mm (3.543 in) respectively. Deck heights for all 4.6 blocks are 227 mm (8.937 in). Connecting rod length is 150.7 mm (5.933 in) center to center giving the 4.6 L a 1.67:1 rod to stroke ratio. Cylinder bore spacing measures 100 mm (3.937 in) which is common to all members of the Modular engine family.


Until 1999, all car engines were produced at the Romeo plant. In 1999 and 2000, Mustang engines were produced in Windsor. Production was moved back to Romeo in 2001. Most truck engines are from the Windsor plant, however there are many later model trucks with Romeo engines. All aluminum-blocked engines were produced at Romeo. In keeping with traditional Ford practice, as engine design is revised over time compatibility with previous versions is considered low priority, so that parts from a modular engine made in one model year are not necessarily likely to fit an engine made in another; and parts from an engine manufactured in Romeo are unlikely to fit an engine made in Windsor. The Romeo and Windsor plants have different designs for main bearings, heads (cam caps), camshaft gears (press-on vs. bolt on), valve covers (number of bolts), crankshaft (number of flywheel bolts), and cross bolt fasteners for main bearing caps.

2-valve

Vehicles equipped with the 16-valve SOHC 4.6 include the following:

· 1991-1993 Lincoln Town Car, 190 hp (142 kW) and 260 lb·ft (353 N·m)
· 1992-1997 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 210 hp (157 kW) and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m) with dual exhaust option
· 1998-2000 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 215 hp (160 kW) and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m) with dual exhaust option
· 2001-2002 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 235 hp (175 kW) and 275 lb·ft (373 N·m) with dual exhaust option
· 2003-2004 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 239 hp (178 kW) and 282 lb·ft (382 N·m) with dual exhaust option
· 2004-present Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, 250 hp (186 kW) and 287 lb·ft (389 N·m)
· 1994-1997 Lincoln Town Car, 210 hp (157 kW)
· 1994-1995 Ford Thunderbird, 205 hp (153 kW) and 265 lb·ft (359 N·m)
· 1996-1997 Ford Thunderbird, 205 hp (153 kW) and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m)
· 1994-1995 Mercury Cougar, 205 hp (153 kW) and 265 lb·ft (359 N·m)
· 1996-1997 Mercury Cougar, 205 hp (153 kW) and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m)
· 1998-2000 Lincoln Town Car, 205 hp (153 kW)
· 2001-2002 Lincoln Town Car, 235 hp (175 kW)
· 2003-2004 Lincoln Town Car, 239 hp (178 kW)
· 2002-2005 Ford Explorer, 239 hp (178 kW) and 282 lb·ft (382 N·m)
· 1996-1997 Ford Mustang, 215 hp (160 kW) and 285 lb·ft (386 N·m)
· 1998 Ford Mustang, 225 hp (168 kW) and 290 lb·ft (393 N·m)
· 1999-2004 Ford Mustang, 260 hp (194 kW) and 302 lb·ft (409 N·m)
· 1997-present Ford F-Series, 248 hp (185 kW) and 294 lb·ft (399 N·m) ratings for 2007 and later model year F-Series
· 1997-present Ford E-Series, 225 hp (168 kW) and 286 lb·ft (388 N·m) ratings for 2001 and later model year E-Series

3-valve


4.6 L 3-valve SOHC V8 installed in a 2006 Ford Mustang GT

The 3-valve SOHC 4.6 L with variable camshaft timing (VCT) first appeared in the redesigned 2005 Ford Mustang.

The engines are equipped with an electronic Charge Motion Control Valve (CMCV) system that provides increased charge motion at low engine speeds for improved emissions and low-rpm torque. Cylinder block material varies between aluminum used in the 2005+ Mustang GT and cast iron used in the 2006+ Ford Explorer and the 2007+ Ford Explorer Sport Trac (see below), though the same aluminum heads are used in all applications.

The 3-valve SOHC 4.6 L engine was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2005–2008.

Vehicles equipped with the 4.6 L 24-valve SOHC include the following:

· 2005–present Ford Mustang, 4.6 L, 300 hp (224 kW) and 320 ft·lbf (434 N·m)
· 2006–present Ford Explorer, 4.6 L, 292 hp (218 kW) and 300 ft·lbf (407 N·m)
· 2007–present Ford Explorer Sport Trac, 4.6 L, 292 hp (218 kW) and 300 ft·lbf (407 N·m)
· 2009 Ford F-Series, 4.6 L, 292 horsepower (218 kW) and 320 lb·ft (434 N·m)

4-valve


4.6 L 4-valve DOHC supercharged V8 installed in a 2003 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra

The 4-valve DOHC version of the Modular engine was introduced in the 1993 Lincoln Mark VIII.

The 1993–1998 4-valve engines featured cylinder heads with two intake ports per cylinder (split-port) and variable runner length intake manifolds with either vacuum or electrically activated intake manifold runner controls (IMRC) depending on application. The engine was revised for 1999 with new cylinder heads featuring tumble-style intake ports, new camshaft profiles, and fixed runner-length intake manifolds. These changes resulted in more power, torque and a broader powerband when compared to the earlier 4-valve engines.

All 4.6 L 4-valve engines featured aluminum engine blocks with 6-bolt main bearing caps, with the only exception being the 2003–2004 SVT Cobra which had a 4-bolt main cast iron block. The 1999 and earlier engines featured an aluminum block cast in Italy by Fiat subsidiary Teksid S.p.A. Since 1996, all of the 4.6 L 4-valve engines manufactured for use in the SVT Cobra have been hand-built by SVT technicians at Ford's Romeo, Michigan plant.

The 4-valve DOHC 4.6 L engine was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 1996.

· 1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII, 280 hp (209 kW) and 285 lb·ft (386 N·m)
· 1995-1997 Lincoln Continental, 260 hp (194 kW) and 265 lb·ft (359 N·m)
· 1996-1998 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, 305 hp (227 kW) and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m)
· 1997-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC, 290 hp (216 kW) and 290 lb·ft (393 N·m)
· 1998-2002 Lincoln Continental, 275 hp (205 kW) and 275 lb·ft (373 N·m)
· 1999/2001 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, 320 hp (239 kW) and 317 lb·ft (430 N·m)
· 2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1, 305 hp (227 kW) and 320 lb·ft (434 N·m)
· 2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1, 310 hp (231 kW) and 335 lb·ft (454 N·m) [6]
· 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder, 302 hp (225 kW) and 318 lb·ft (431 N·m)
· 2003-2005 Lincoln Aviator, 302 hp (225 kW) and 318 lb·ft (431 N·m)
· 2003-2004 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, Iron block, Supercharged, 390 hp (291 kW) and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m)

5.4 L


5.4 L 4-valve DOHC supercharged V8 installed in a 2007 Ford Shelby GT500

The 5.4 L (5408 cc, 330 CID)[2] V8 is a member of the Modular engine family first introduced in the redesigned 1997 Ford F-150 as a Triton V8. Bore diameter is 90.2 mm (3.552 in) and stroke is 105.8 mm (4.165 in), the increased stroke necessitated a taller 256 mm (10.079 in) engine block deck height. A 169.1 mm (6.658 in) connecting rod length is used to achieve a 1.60:1 rod to stroke ratio. The 5.4 L is built in Windsor, Ontario at the Windsor Engine plant. The engine has been available in three different configurations since its 1997 introduction:

· SOHC 2-valve
· SOHC 3-valve with VCT
· DOHC 4-valve

2-valve

Introduced in 1997, the SOHC 2-valve 5.4 L has a cast iron engine block and aluminum cylinder heads. The 5.4 L features multi-port fuel injection, roller followers, fracture-split powder metal connecting rods, and in some applications a forged steel crankshaft.
The 2-valve SOHC 5.4 L engine was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 1997–1998 and 2000–2002.

· 1997-2004 Ford F-Series, 2-valve SOHC, 260 hp (194 kW) and 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) ratings for 1999 and later model years
· 1997-2004 Ford Expedition, 2-valve SOHC, 260 hp (194 kW) and 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) ratings for 1999 and later model years
· 1997-present Ford E-Series, 2-valve SOHC, 255 hp (190 kW) and 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) ratings for 1999 and later model years
· 1999-2004 Ford SVT Lightning, 2-valve SOHC, Supercharged, 380 hp (283 kW) and 450 lb·ft (610 N·m) ratings for 2001 and later model years

3-valve

In 2003, Ford introduced a new 3-valve SOHC cylinder head with variable camshaft timing (VCT), improving power and torque over the previous 2-valve SOHC version. The 3-valve cylinder head was first used on the 2003 Ford Fairmont 5.4 L Barra 220 engine in Australia. The 3-valve 5.4 L was introduced to the North American market in the redesigned 2004 Ford F-150.

· 2003-2005 Ford Fairmont, 3-valve SOHC, 295 hp (220 kW) and 347 lb·ft (470 N·m)
· 2003-2004 Ford Fairlane G220, 3-valve SOHC, 295 hp (220 kW) and 347 lb·ft (470 N·m)
· 2004-2008 Ford F-Series, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)
· 2005-present Ford Expedition, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)
· 2005-present Lincoln Navigator, 3-valve SOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 365 lb·ft (495 N·m)
· 2005-2007 Ford Fairlane G8, 3-valve SOHC, 309 hp (230 kW) and 369 lb·ft (500 N·m)
· 2006-2007 Ford Fairmont, 3-valve SOHC, 309 hp (230 kW) and 369 lb·ft (500 N·m)
· 2009 Ford F-Series, 3-valve SOHC, 320 hp (239 kW) and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m)

4-valve


5.4 L 4-valve DOHC V8 installed in a 2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R
In 1999, Ford introduced the DOHC 4-valve 5.4 L in the Lincoln Navigator under the Intech moniker. Ford later used versions of the DOHC 4-valve 5.4 L in the 2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R, the Ford GT sports car, and the Ford Shelby GT500. The DOHC 4-valve 5.4 L is also used in the Ford Falcon line in Australia under the Boss moniker.

The SVT Cobra R version of the 5.4 L 4-valve V8 had several key differences from its Lincoln counterpart. While the iron block and forged steel crankshaft were sourced directly from the Intech 5.4 L, the Cobra R powerplant benefited from new, high-flow cylinder heads that were designed with features developed for Ford's "Rough Rider" off-road racing program, application specific camshafts with higher lift and more duration than other Modular cams, forged I-beam connecting rods sourced from Carillo, forged pistons that provided a 9.6:1 compression ratio, and a high-flow aluminum intake manifold. The Cobra R was rated at 385 hp (287 kW) and 385 lb·ft (522 N·m) though chassis dynamometer results have shown these ratings to be conservative with unmodified Cobra Rs often producing nearly 380 hp (280 kW) at the rear wheels.

The Ford GT version of the 5.4 L is a highly-specialized version of the Modular engine. It is an all-aluminum, dry-sump 5.4 L 4-valve DOHC with a Lysholm screw-type supercharger and showcases numerous technological features, such as dual fuel injectors per cylinder and oil squirters for the piston skirts, not found in other Ford Modular engines. The GT 5.4 L benefits from an improved version of the high-flow 2000 Cobra R cylinder head and unique high-lift camshafts. The GT is rated at 550 hp (410 kW) and 500 ft·lbf (678 N·m), though independent tests conducted on chassis dynamometers have shown these numbers to be conservative, with as delivered Ford GTs often producing nearly 550 hp (410 kW) at the rear wheels.

The Shelby GT500 uses an iron block 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L with an Eaton M122H Roots type supercharger and air-to-liquid intercooler.[8] The GT500 5.4 L shares its high-flow cylinder head castings with the Ford GT, with only minor machining differences, and shares camshafts with the 2003–2004 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra; which have less lift and duration than the Ford GT camshafts. All of the 5.4 L 4-valve engines destined for use in SVT vehicles, such as the Ford GT and Shelby GT500, have been hand-built by technicians at Ford's Romeo, Michigan plant.

· 1999-2004 Lincoln Navigator, 4-valve DOHC, 300 hp (224 kW) and 355 lb·ft (481 N·m)
· 2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R, 4-valve DOHC, 385 hp (287 kW) and 385 lb·ft (522 N·m)
· 2002-2005 Ford Falcon XR8, 4-valve DOHC, 349 hp (260 kW) and 369 lb·ft (500 N·m)
· 2005-2006 Ford GT, 4-valve DOHC, Aluminum Block, Supercharged, 550 hp (410 kW) and 500 lb·ft (678 N·m)
· 2006 Ford Falcon FPV GT, 4-valve DOHC, 389 hp (290 kW) and 384 lb·ft (521 N·m)
· 2007-present Ford Shelby GT500, 4-valve DOHC, Supercharged, 500 hp (373 kW) and 480 lb·ft (651 N·m) SAE J1349 certified
· 2007 Ford Falcon FPV GT Cobra, 4-valve DOHC, 405 hp (302 kW) and 398 lb·ft (540 N·m)
· 2008 Ford Falcon FPV GT, 4-valve DOHC, 422 hp (315 kW) and 406.5 lb·ft (551 N·m)

6.8 L V10

The 6.8 L (6760 cc, 413 CID) V10 is another variation of the Modular family created for use in large trucks. Bore size is 90.2 mm (3.552 in) and stroke is 105.8 mm (4.165 in), identical to the 5.4 L V8. Both 2-valve and 3-valve versions are currently produced. The 6.8 L uses a balance shaft to quell vibrations inherent to a 90° bank angle V10 engine configuration. The 2-valve version, built at Ford's Windsor, Ontario LVL engine line, was first introduced in 1997. For 2005, Ford introduced a 3-valve non-VCT version of the 6.8 L V10 . The 3-valve engine is built alongside the 2-valve engine at Ford's Windsor, Ontario engine plant.

Vehicles equipped with the 6.8 L V10 Modular engine include the following:

2-valve

· 1997-present Ford E-Series, 2-valve SOHC, 305 hp (227 kW) and 420 lb·ft (569 N·m) ratings for 2000 and later model years
· 1999-2004 Ford F-Series Super Duty, 2-valve SOHC, 310 hp (231 kW) and 425 lb·ft (576 N·m) ratings for 2000 and later model years
· 2000-2005 Ford Excursion, 2-valve SOHC, 310 hp (231 kW) and 425 lb·ft (576 N·m)
[edit] 3-valve
· 2005-present Ford F-Series Super Duty, 3-valve SOHC, 362 hp (270 kW) and 457 lb·ft (620 N·m).

5.0 L Cammer


5.0 L R50 Cammer 4-valve DOHC V8 engine installed in a Grand-Am Cup Mustang FR500C.

In 2005, Ford Racing Performance Parts introduced a 5.0 L (4992 cc, 305 CID) V8 crate engine for use in motor racing and home-made performance cars, officially called M-6007-T50EA, but more widely known as "Cammer". Since then, other higher performance variations of the Cammer have been introduced for Grand-Am Cup and European FIA. All versions of the Cammer are DOHC 4-valve per cylinder designs with a 94 mm (3.700 in) bore and a 90 mm (3.543 in) stroke. The Cammer achieves it's larger 94 mm bore by resleeving a production 4.6 L aluminum block.

The T50 Cammer crate engine, the least expensive and most street oriented version, utilizes derivatives of the cylinder heads, variable runner-length magnesium intake manifold, and camshafts first used in the 2000 FR500 Mustang concept car. These parts are unique to the T50 Cammer crate engine and are not found in any other production Modular applications. The T50 has an 11.0:1 compression ratio and exceeds 415 horsepower (309 kW) with the proper exhaust manifolds.

The Cammer that has seen success in Grand Am Cup powering the Mustang FR500C is officially called M-6007-R50 and features a unique dual plenum, fixed runner-length magnesium intake manifold, Ford GT aluminum cylinder heads, unique camshafts of unrevealed specifications, and an 11.0:1 compression ratio. The R50 Cammer produces over 425 hp (317 kW) despite being fitted with a Grand Am Cup-supplied "restrictor plate" mounted directly aft of the throttle body. Upon introduction the R50 Cammer-powered Mustang FR500C proved to be dominant in Grand-Am Cup, having achieved five victories and podium appearances in nearly every race in the GS class during the 2005 season, giving David Empringham the championship title with the Multimatic Motorsports team, and Ford the manufacturer's title.
Robert Yates publicly expressed interest in using a similar 5.0 L 4-valve DOHC Modular V8 to compete in the NASCAR Winston (now Sprint) Cup series. Roush-Yates currently supplies a naturally aspirated 550 hp (410 kW) 5.0 L Cammer for the Mustang FR500GT, also known as the "Man-Racer", that participates in FIA GT3 European Championship.

Ford of Australia


5.4 L 3-valve SOHC Barra V8
Boss 315 Engine pic
Ford Australia uses 5.4 L Modular V8s in the Ford Falcon and previously on the Ford Fairlane sedan model ranges, as well as in its high performance Ford Performance Vehicles (FPV) division models. The DOHC 5.4 L V8s are coined Boss by Ford Australia while the SOHC versions were coined Barra, with a number designation referring to power output in kW. The SOHC Barra engines were, and the DOHC Boss short blocks and cylinder heads are built in Windsor, Ontario. The Boss engines include some locally sourced parts such as intake and pistons. All are built with cast-iron blocks.

Ford of Australia 5.4 L engines include:

· Barra 220 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 295 hp (220 kW) @ 4750 rpm, 347 lb·ft (470 N·m) @ 3250 rpm
· Barra 230 3-valve SOHC 5.4 L V8, 309 hp (230 kW) @ 5350 rpm, 369 lb·ft (500 N·m) @ 3500 rpm
· Boss 260 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 349 hp (260 kW) @ 5250 rpm, 369 lb·ft (500 N·m) @ 4000 rpm
· Boss 290 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 389 hp (290 kW) @ 5500 rpm, 384 lb·ft (521 N·m) @ 4500 rpm
· Boss 302 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 405 hp (302 kW) @ 6000 rpm, 398 lb·ft (540 N·m) @ 4750 rpm
· Boss 315 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 422 hp (315 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 406.5 lb·ft (551 N·m) @ 4750 rpm

Maic.


My idea of "help from above"... Is a sniper on the Roof
Maic is offline  
post #42 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 05:25 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
twin turbo 281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,624
Send a message via MSN to twin turbo 281
if you want 300whp its going to cost more than its worthbuilding the 2v. Why not sart with a 32v motor. 300whp would then be achivable easily. With a 2v it would be easier and less costly to purchase a forced induction kit to achive the hp needed. these cars put down what 170ish at the wheels and 210-220 at t he crank? If you did a Pi swap you would gain about 40hp give or take and add intake mods and exhaust system tuning maybe 50ish? which would roughly be 260-270 with 220-240wheels. that means you would need 70-80 more hp at the crank to see 300rwhp. Now lets see basic intake mods and exhaust would be tapped out to see 220-240whp that leaves it to further tuning/cams/compression/head+valvetrain work/stroker?/bigbore?

70-80 achived from bumping the already 9.7cr higher and big camms will get you a gas guzzling non emmissions passing expensive 2v. That woulnt be too fun to drive everyday.

With boost or a 32v setup you could keep your drivability/emmissions/economy to a DD status and make the power cheaper. If you want to stay NA I vote 32v with bolt ons and maybe mild cams

2x95 cougars to the scapper
97 F250 psd 4x4 dd twin charged
48 Gmc Detroit diesel 453t twin sticked
45 Chevy 451 detroit twin sticked
51 Mack A51T restoration
twin turbo 281 is offline  
post #43 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 05:57 PM
Slightly Disjointed
Super Moderator
 
XR7-4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roselle IL
Age: 28
Posts: 15,395
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to XR7-4.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post

70-80 achived from bumping the already 9.7cr higher and big camms will get you a gas guzzling non emmissions passing expensive 2v. That woulnt be too fun to drive everyday.
What?

Higher compression will do the Oppisite of that. A good tune (and keeping all the emmisions equiptment) will keep it in an acceptable range for emmisions, even with the more agressive cams.

Can you say the same for your quad turbo cougar?

-Matt
XR7-4.6 is offline  
post #44 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-08-2009, 06:23 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
twin turbo 281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,624
Send a message via MSN to twin turbo 281
higher comp or not with a large cam depenmding on the specs you will still have a large amount of overlap at idle creating blow-by of raw fuel/air charge at idle. Which results in excessive hydrocarbons and poor fuel economy. Ive been there many times. As for my quad turbo car its a PI motor with stock cams and if its tuned correctly The economy will probally be fine in cruise conditions. Tuning or no tuning high comp or low you woulnt completely get around large overlap that will be needed for 340 crank HP. Because the only 2vs that were making that kind of power that ive heard of are running camms with alot of duration and around the 110 lsa area. Which are not daily driving friendly cams.

2x95 cougars to the scapper
97 F250 psd 4x4 dd twin charged
48 Gmc Detroit diesel 453t twin sticked
45 Chevy 451 detroit twin sticked
51 Mack A51T restoration

Last edited by twin turbo 281; 03-08-2009 at 06:39 PM.
twin turbo 281 is offline  
post #45 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 08:40 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
higher comp or not with a large cam depenmding on the specs you will still have a large amount of overlap at idle creating blow-by of raw fuel/air charge at idle. Which results in excessive hydrocarbons and poor fuel economy. Ive been there many times. As for my quad turbo car its a PI motor with stock cams and if its tuned correctly The economy will probally be fine in cruise conditions. Tuning or no tuning high comp or low you woulnt completely get around large overlap that will be needed for 340 crank HP. Because the only 2vs that were making that kind of power that ive heard of are running camms with alot of duration and around the 110 lsa area. Which are not daily driving friendly cams.
OK Genius..you can spew that garbage all over that turbo forum if you like, but it ain't happening in here. My car averages 20 mpg highway, is just over 10:1 CR, and it's running the Comp 270AH cam with 234 degrees intake and 238 degrees exhaust duration on a 113 LSA. It's making right at 300rwhp,and I drive it on a regular basis.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/4R70W.....12.16@111.77
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/AWD....14.41@96.27-stone stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #46 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 02:44 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
twin turbo 281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,624
Send a message via MSN to twin turbo 281
I understand you can make it happen wit hall the resources and cash but i was looking at whats easier thousands to build your 350hp NA 2v or a few hundred (if you knowledgable) to swap in a 32v with bolt ons.

lets see a cam swap on a 2v including valve springs and the necesary tools cost around 500-1000? if your doing the work
headwork what maybe another 500-1000?
a built shortblock to raise CR 2000+?
gaskets 200+?
im assuming gears and stall to get the car to the correct usable range $$$$

or 32swap
used good tested 32v 200$ and up
wiring harness or used 2v harness free-200
exhaust system 800-1500 headers mid pipe tail pipes

So the question will be will a factory 32v with bolt ons with a good tune be more economical than a built 2v? 20mpg on the highway aint too bad but Im more curious to what it gets loping around town at stop lights and parking lots? 10-15mpg?

2x95 cougars to the scapper
97 F250 psd 4x4 dd twin charged
48 Gmc Detroit diesel 453t twin sticked
45 Chevy 451 detroit twin sticked
51 Mack A51T restoration
twin turbo 281 is offline  
post #47 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Like Titles Matter
Moderator
 
kdanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX Ya'll
Age: 48
Posts: 2,126
An once again, he ASSumes to know everything. You have no idea just how cheaply Johnny built that 2V.

I also love it how you add the cost of converter and gears to the 2V but somehow evidently don't think a junky old B headed 4V needs the same.

You talk about these things, but we've done them. You've done nothing.

EFI Tuners Organization Administrator/Gatekeeper

1996 Thunderbird LX- 12.54@106.08 NA
1998 GT - 11.51@122
2001 Lightning - 12.15@110
1996 GT 248A - ?@?
2011 GT - 10.46@129.38 180 MPH at the Texas Mile


generated by sloganizer.net
kdanner is offline  
post #48 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 05:35 PM
50 years of Mercury Cougar 1967/2017
 
r429460's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cooper City, Fla.
Posts: 1,150
So for my combo. the 262AH is not enough cam.
As well as the converter.2800 flash.
Sh....................t.
r429460 is online now  
post #49 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 07:33 PM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by r429460 View Post
So for my combo. the 262AH is not enough cam.
As well as the converter.2800 flash.
Sh....................t.
I really feel the 262AH cam doesn't get enough credit-it's much improved over the OEM cam, and does make a substantial gain in a good set of heads.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/4R70W.....12.16@111.77
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/AWD....14.41@96.27-stone stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #50 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 07:50 PM
Moderator & Teksid Whore
Super Moderator
 
guitar maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Laredo, Texas
Age: 37
Posts: 11,923
Send a message via MSN to guitar maestro Send a message via Yahoo to guitar maestro
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
I understand you can make it happen wit hall the resources and cash but i was looking at whats easier thousands to build your 350hp NA 2v or a few hundred (if you knowledgable) to swap in a 32v with bolt ons.
read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by transam396 View Post
Like it states I was wondering what would be required to get 300 rwhp on a NA build?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
So the question will be will a factory 32v with bolt ons with a good tune be more economical than a built 2v?
no that is NOT the question!! ......read this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by transam396 View Post
Also not looking to do a 32v swap maybe explorer swap
can you put 2 and 2 together?? he's not asking for "economical"....he's not asking to weigh out the benefits/advantages/disadvantages of a 4V vs a 2V engine......stick to the topic or your replies will ALL be deleted...have a nice day
guitar maestro is offline  
post #51 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 07:54 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 33
Posts: 7,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
I understand you can make it happen wit hall the resources and cash but i was looking at whats easier thousands to build your 350hp NA 2v or a few hundred (if you knowledgable) to swap in a 32v with bolt ons.
Unless we're counting FI as a bolt-on here, a 32V isn't going to make 300rwhp with just "bolt ons".

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
rodsv6cougar@cs.com
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #52 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 08:09 PM
Like Titles Matter
Moderator
 
kdanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX Ya'll
Age: 48
Posts: 2,126
So ridiculous that someone actually thinks "oh you can just use any old $200 engine and put some exhaust on it."

EFI Tuners Organization Administrator/Gatekeeper

1996 Thunderbird LX- 12.54@106.08 NA
1998 GT - 11.51@122
2001 Lightning - 12.15@110
1996 GT 248A - ?@?
2011 GT - 10.46@129.38 180 MPH at the Texas Mile


generated by sloganizer.net
kdanner is offline  
post #53 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 08:16 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 33
Posts: 7,173
But isn't that how it works?

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
rodsv6cougar@cs.com
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #54 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 08:38 PM
SuperNewbie
 
supergordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,869
Garage
Send a message via Yahoo to supergordo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdanner View Post
So ridiculous that someone actually thinks "oh you can just use any old $200 engine and put some exhaust on it."
Soo I have to get the $200 engine and run NO exhaust??

1995 Cougar XR7 4.6
1997 Thunderbird LX 4.6
1977 Country Squire 460
1985 Capri RS 5.0, 5spd
1997 Thunderbird 4.6
1984 Capri RS 5.0,5spd
supergordo is offline  
post #55 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-09-2009, 10:19 PM
TGJ
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
 
TGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
So the question will be will a factory 32v with bolt ons with a good tune be more economical than a built 2v? 20mpg on the highway aint too bad but Im more curious to what it gets loping around town at stop lights and parking lots? 10-15mpg?
Well, I can't speak on the 4V fuel mileage compared to the built 2V but I can on the 3V fuel mileage compared to a built 2V. My TBird does pretty well in the city loping around. Driving it normally, I get 21 MPG in the city with it, 25 on the highway. Babying it does not really help it. I don't really drive my stuff overly hard on the street... My Mustang average 18 MPG in the city and 28 MPG on the highway. Babying it does help, I can get it to 20 MPG in the city and 34 on the highway.

I am over the 300 RWHP N/A mark and I run a cam with 234 duration intake and exhaust with 114 LSA.

R.I.P. Johnny Langton (1975 - 2011)

1996 Thunderbird 5.0L 2V-4R70W
12.64 @ 107 MPH -> DA 3315 Ft above Sea level
12.49 @ 109 -> DA 2967 Ft above Sea level
2005 Mustang GT 4.6L 3V-TR3650 - SOLD
13.39 @ 102 MPH -> DA 3617 Ft above Sea level
2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V-6R80 - Bolt-ons
12.32 @ 115 MPH -> DA 2980 Ft above Sea level
TGJ is offline  
post #56 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-10-2009, 03:33 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
twin turbo 281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Auburn WA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,624
Send a message via MSN to twin turbo 281
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitar maestro View Post
read this:






no that is NOT the question!! ......read this:



can you put 2 and 2 together?? he's not asking for "economical"....he's not asking to weigh out the benefits/advantages/disadvantages of a 4V vs a 2V engine......stick to the topic or your replies will ALL be deleted...have a nice day
My Pi motor was 200$ and in low milage good condition. Its already paid for itself. how would a 32v not put 300 t othe ground when they put about what 250rw stock in the mark 8s? You cant get 50 with long tubes a x pipe and correct mufflers sct tune/ intake mods and maf? maybe even a ported intake?
He didnt ask for economical but when it also comes to cost do you wana pay 30$ for your ice cream or 5$ for the same taste? Delete my replies fine go ahead see if I give a $hat. Its not my money thats being pissed away on a setup that can be achived easier . Its funny how many other topics get off topic here but You threaten to silence my opinions unlike many others. You are one powerful man!

I have my own view of opinion and Im not going to bend over for the ones who also think that there way is the only way to get it done.

2x95 cougars to the scapper
97 F250 psd 4x4 dd twin charged
48 Gmc Detroit diesel 453t twin sticked
45 Chevy 451 detroit twin sticked
51 Mack A51T restoration
twin turbo 281 is offline  
post #57 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-10-2009, 06:14 AM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 33
Posts: 7,173
Stock Mark 8's don't put down 250 rwhp. Bolt-ons like headers, better flowing exhaust, electric water pump, a good tune, etc., will get them into the 240-250 rwhp ballpark.

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
rodsv6cougar@cs.com
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #58 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-10-2009, 07:10 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by racecougar View Post
Stock Mark 8's don't put down 250 rwhp. Bolt-ons like headers, better flowing exhaust, electric water pump, a good tune, etc., will get them into the 240-250 rwhp ballpark.
Yeap-that's right...and with around 260ft-lbs of torque. The B-headed 4V is an absolute PIG in N/A form unless you bump it up to around 12:1 CR.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/4R70W.....12.16@111.77
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/AWD....14.41@96.27-stone stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #59 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Moderator & Teksid Whore
Super Moderator
 
guitar maestro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Laredo, Texas
Age: 37
Posts: 11,923
Send a message via MSN to guitar maestro Send a message via Yahoo to guitar maestro
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
I have my own view of opinion and Im not going to bend over for the ones who also think that there way is the only way to get it done.
its not that i want to silence your opinions, but this thread started going nowhere fast, starting with others who posted before you....so dont get all mushy, but its gotta stop somewhere......the focus just turned to your direction just 'cause you were the lucky one.........everyone else started posting good options, like big pete and others ........but then the whole "oh do this motor that cant even be installed in an mn12 bay-yada-yada-yada" just gets old fast.........opinions and what-not are welcome, but when things start getting cluttered with bad tech, then thats where we have to draw the line....and lets face it....you are quite well-known in this forum for giving bad tech advice on many occasions......me personally, i'd do the 32V swap.....so I do know where you're coming from...and no, a stock mark viii engine wont do 300 to the wheels with just bolt-ons/tune/exhaust....can it get close....definitely....but i dont recall too many, if any at all, mark viiis with stock longblocks puttin down 300 rwhp

anyways, i havent seen the original poster reply as of late, so lets let this idle until he graces us with his presence

Last edited by guitar maestro; 03-10-2009 at 09:05 AM.
guitar maestro is offline  
post #60 of 90 (permalink) Old 03-10-2009, 07:31 PM
Like Titles Matter
Moderator
 
kdanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX Ya'll
Age: 48
Posts: 2,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
how would a 32v not put 300 t othe ground when they put about what 250rw stock in the mark 8s?
Because it won't, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
You cant get 50 with long tubes a x pipe and correct mufflers sct tune/ intake mods and maf? maybe even a ported intake?
NO

Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
Its not my money thats being pissed away
No it's not. If someone actually believes the BS you spewed about this it will be their money pissed away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
on a setup that can be achived easier .
If it's so easy, why don't you go do it? Would you like to make a little side wager with me about the results you will get?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twin turbo 281 View Post
I have my own view of opinion and Im not going to bend over for the ones who also think that there way is the only way to get it done.
This is a tech forum. You are not going to be allowed to post misinformation over and over without being called out for it. If you don't like/can't handle that, I suggest you go elsewhere.

EFI Tuners Organization Administrator/Gatekeeper

1996 Thunderbird LX- 12.54@106.08 NA
1998 GT - 11.51@122
2001 Lightning - 12.15@110
1996 GT 248A - ?@?
2011 GT - 10.46@129.38 180 MPH at the Texas Mile


generated by sloganizer.net
kdanner is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome