Need Help Boss Intake question

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
I think it is funny how if a few people run good with their chosen rear gear ratio, than anything else is bad info. I've seen videos of 6R80 Coyotes with all sorts of different gearing that run great


"4.10's"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGWyeJUx-LM

"4.10's"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfMt0YaeBaw

"4.30's"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STmlGMANS0Q


Just a few examples, but all pretty quick. I'd venture to guess that if all three changed nothing aside from 3.31, or 3.15 gears, you wouldn't see a tenth difference one way or the other. I'd say if you was on a stock converter or one that was too tight, lower gears would surely help. I'd rather have any gears with the right converter, over the "perfect" gears with the wrong converter any day of the week.

Sorry to bust your bubble but you don't have the on-track data to say one way or the other. It's funny that all the quick/fast auto Coyote's running 10's N/A are using a 3.31 or less. The last car in the video's linked...I spent time turning wrenches on and driving. It was quicker/faster with a 3.31. I was driving this pass which was the best it ever made:


...another car I tune: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2362346&postcount=76
....we can keep adding more to the list but you get the point.
 
Last edited:

skaarlaj

Probie Former Pink Bus Rider
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Posts
767
Reaction score
6
Sorry to bust your bubble but you don't have the on-track data to say one way or the other. It's funny that all the quick/fast auto Coyote's running 10's N/A are using a 3.31 or less. The last car in the video's linked...I spent time turning wrenches on and driving. It was quicker/faster with a 3.31. I was driving this pass which was the best it ever made:


...another car I tune: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2362346&postcount=76
....we can keep adding more to the list but you get the point.
So, how much do you think you'd lose, if your car, or that car in the video had 3.73's, or 4.10's and you had time to get it tuned in properly?

I agree all day that your car, and the car in that video are fast as hell especially considering they're NA, but 129mph trap speed says alot more than the right gears, to me it says "extremely good power to weight ratio", and of course a 10 second run means good traction as well.

I'd also say all of the quickest auto NA Coyote mustangs that are in the 10's and also happen to be running 3.31's are more willing to delete significant weight from what I consider a little too nice of a car imho. I mean if you strictly want to go quick NA, stick a Coyote into a foxbody that was light when it was new, and now more than likely a POS that makes sense to strip down?
 
Last edited:

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
So, how much do you think you'd lose, if your car, or that car in the video had 3.73's, or 4.10's and you had time to get it tuned in properly?

It comes down to several things which have been mentioned here MANY times.

Combo - right intake, right gears, right suspension, right tires, right converter, right tune, etc.

Look at the ratios in the 6R80, know where the car makes power. Plug in the tire and gear ratio where you expect the car to cross the stripe at in MPH and you have your answer.

Less time shifting the car and staying in peak power = quicker/faster. This has been proven and solved for quite some time.

I agree all day that your car, and the car in that video are fast as hell especially considering they're NA, but 129mph trap speed says alot more than the right gears, to me it says "extremely good power to weight ratio", and of course a 10 second run means good traction as well.

I'd also say all of the quickest auto NA Coyote mustangs that are in the 10's and also happen to be running 3.31's are more willing to delete significant weight from what I consider a little too nice of a car imho. I mean if you strictly want to go quick NA, stick a Coyote into a foxbody that was light when it was new, and now more than likely a POS that makes sense to strip down?

Every 10 sec N/A car I have tuned (4 to date) sill has A/C, stereo, power windows/locks, etc., driven to the track and back home.

My personal car is towed to and from the track because I can. It's much more comfortable sitting in an air conditioned trailer between rounds vs. 90+ degree heat in the sun.
 

Five Oh Brian

Mustang Guru
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Posts
1,687
Reaction score
17
Location
Pacific Northwest
I agree all day that your car, and the car in that video are fast as hell especially considering they're NA, but 129mph trap speed says alot more than the right gears, to me it says "extremely good power to weight ratio", and of course a 10 second run means good traction as well.

Assuming a race weight of a stock '11-'14 5.0L AT with driver at 3750 lbs, you'd need 568 RWHP to trap 129 mph around sea level. That kind of power just isn't happening with an NA build.

Conversely, stripping the same car down to just 3000 lbs requires just 455 RWHP to trap 129 mph. That kind of power could be had with head/cams/intake/exhaust/tuning mods while staying NA.

So, I agree wholeheartedly with you that those 10 second NA 5.0/AT's are lightened dramatically.
 

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
Assuming a race weight of a stock '11-'14 5.0L AT with driver at 3750 lbs, you'd need 568 RWHP to trap 129 mph around sea level. That kind of power just isn't happening with an NA build.

Conversely, stripping the same car down to just 3000 lbs requires just 455 RWHP to trap 129 mph. That kind of power could be had with head/cams/intake/exhaust/tuning mods while staying NA.

So, I agree wholeheartedly with you that those 10 second NA 5.0/AT's are lightened dramatically.

That kind of power can be had with a bone stock long block with headers, good tune, good fuel and good air.

My car was ~3,500 lbs. here:

...so no it doesn't require a stripped down to nothing car. Wrong again you are.

Let's go back to all of the 10 second N/A car's, outside of mine, I have tuned that drive to and from the track, with A/C, with power everything, stereo, etc. There are other's who have done the same.
 

Five Oh Brian

Mustang Guru
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Posts
1,687
Reaction score
17
Location
Pacific Northwest
That kind of power can be had with a bone stock long block with headers, good tune, good fuel and good air.

568 RWHP NA? That's almost 200 RWHP more than a stock 5.0L and I don't believe it for one second. 129 mph trap speeds NA are obviously a combination of power mods and lightweighting. How much of each is often shrouded in secrecy for some reason.

Physics and math don't lie. The video you posted above with a trap speed of just under 126 mph and 3500 lb race weight suggests the car made about 494 RWHP on that pass. That kind of power is believable for an NA 5.0L with enough mods, but you'll never convince me that 568 RWHP is possible NA on a stock long block.
 

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
568 RWHP NA? That's almost 200 RWHP more than a stock 5.0L and I don't believe it for one second. 129 mph trap speeds NA are obviously a combination of power mods and lightweighting. How much of each is often shrouded in secrecy for some reason.

Physics and math don't lie. The video you posted above with a trap speed of just under 126 mph and 3500 lb race weight suggests the car made about 494 RWHP on that pass. That kind of power is believable for an NA 5.0L with enough mods, but you'll never convince me that 568 RWHP is possible NA on a stock long block.

You are just pulling numbers out of thin air assuming...just to support your argument. I guarantee you my car never made close to the 494WHP number you suggest it did in the linked video. It also wasn't as light as you are implying. Whatever calculator you are using to ascertain a certain number for power to weight is wrong.

 

Five Oh Brian

Mustang Guru
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Posts
1,687
Reaction score
17
Location
Pacific Northwest
You are just pulling numbers out of thin air assuming...just to support your argument. I guarantee you my car never made close to the 494WHP number you suggest it did in the linked video. It also wasn't as light as you are implying. Whatever calculator you are using to ascertain a certain number for power to weight is wrong.

http://s632.photobucket.com/user/wbthurber/media/2012 Mustang GT/wbt_weight2.jpg.html

Physics 101 says that horsepower can be easily calculated by knowing how long it takes to accelerate a known weight over a known distance. The math is simple and shows that it take 494 rwhp to accelerate a 3500 lb vehicle to 126 mph through the 1/4 mile traps. If you dyno'd your car and got a dramatically different # then I would suggest that the dyno wasn't calibrated correctly.

You tell quite a few people that they are "wrong" in your posts, WBT. You believe that you have solved every S197 issue and that there is nothing new or different to be learned about our beloved S197's. Makes me (and many others) want to avoid this site. In fact, there are only 14 members viewing this site as I type this response. That's down from the hundreds (or even several thousand) members that used to frequent this site just a couple of years ago. So sad that this site is becoming less and less relevant every day.
 

Grabber Blue 5.0

forum member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Posts
1,420
Reaction score
141
Brian, it must suck for you being wrong all the time. WBT talks the talk but also walks the walk while your car continues to unimpress. But hey, you have all the answers right?:whistle1:
 

ford20

forum member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Posts
7,346
Reaction score
24
Location
White Plains,NY
That kind of power can be had with a bone stock long block with headers, good tune, good fuel and good air.

My car was ~3,500 lbs. here:

...so no it doesn't require a stripped down to nothing car. Wrong again you are.

Let's go back to all of the 10 second N/A car's, outside of mine, I have tuned that drive to and from the track, with A/C, with power everything, stereo, etc. There are other's who have done the same.

That is something that I might actually disagree with you there without some more clarification. You are going to need to a high compression motor (like 13, maybe 14:1) with some good long tubes, and a set of custom grind cams, heads, CJ manifold and some E85 or even race gas to get those power numbers.
 

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
That is something that I might actually disagree with you there without some more clarification. You are going to need to a high compression motor (like 13, maybe 14:1) with some good long tubes, and a set of custom grind cams, heads, CJ manifold and some E85 or even race gas to get those power numbers.

My reply was specifically to this imaginary number:

Conversely, stripping the same car down to just 3000 lbs requires just 455 RWHP to trap 129 mph.

...with which he changed the numbers again for his argument to:

The math is simple and shows that it take 494 rwhp to accelerate a 3500 lb vehicle to 126 mph...
 

Grabberblumaico

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Posts
28
Reaction score
0
10.704_1.jpg



WBT Tuned. Unopened motor.....
 

JEWC_Motorsports

S197 Junkie
S197 Team Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
20,471
Reaction score
1,596
Location
Texas
Brett, give up. You are just spinning your wheels here, much like guys with auto's running anything above a 3.31 gear.
 

skaarlaj

Probie Former Pink Bus Rider
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Posts
767
Reaction score
6
So what's the optimal rpm to go through the traps? As close to red-line before an up-shift, in the meat of the power between peak tq, and peak hp? And would you want the same in the eighth traps as you would in the quarter traps as far as rpm? The reason I ask is because I almost exclusively run through the eighth, and only occasionally through the quarter.

For me, the way my car sits now, I trap right around 84 mph, and just barely get into 3'rd. I'm not planning a gear change because I know I'm not done as far as my power is concerned, so I was just going to see what it traps with a blower, and gear accordingly if need-be, "I'd like to trap right around 100 after being boosted, and 3.73's would give me around 105 ish on 28"tires at around 7200rpms, which in turn would leave me charging pretty hard at that particlar moment.

Another thing that I've been noticing when looking at gear calculators is that even though our 4.17 1st gear is very low compared to 1st gears in most other transmissions, is that rear gears don't make a huge difference on top speeds in 1st gear, aka, it's not like being in a truck in 4 low if you happen to have something aside from a 3.15, or a 3.31. For example, the speed at 7000rpms in 1st with a 3.31 gear on a 28" tire is 42mph, and if you went all the way to a 4.56 at the same rpm with the same diameter tire, you will be at 31mph, not that drastic imo for those that think your going to be automatically having traction issues because you don't have 3.31's
 
Last edited:

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
10.704_1.jpg



WBT Tuned. Unopened motor.....

Video of Bill's .70 pass (1:36 mark):


Race weight with driver, please?
Never been on a dyno, never been on a scale. Drives it to and from the track.

Brett, give up. You are just spinning your wheels here, much like guys with auto's running anything above a 3.31 gear.

Yeah....it's like talking to a wall. If folks are interested in help they can reach me via PM. My biggest pet peeve is the mis-information that is spread around.

So what's the optimal rpm to go through the traps? As close to red-line before an up-shift, in the meat of the power between peak tq, and peak hp? And would you want the same in the eighth traps as you would in the quarter traps as far as rpm? The reason I ask is because I almost exclusively run through the eighth, and only occasionally through the quarter.

For me, the way my car sits now, I trap right around 84 mph, and just barely get into 3'rd. I'm not planning a gear change because I know I'm not done as far as my power is concerned, so I was just going to see what it traps with a blower, and gear accordingly if need-be, "I'd like to trap right around 100 after being boosted, and 3.73's would give me around 105 ish on 28"tires at around 7200rpms, which in turn would leave me charging pretty hard at that particlar moment.

Another thing that I've been noticing when looking at gear calculators is that even though our 4.17 1st gear is very low compared to 1st gears in most other transmissions, is that rear gears don't make a huge difference on top speeds in 1st gear, aka, it's not like being in a truck in 4 low if you happen to have something aside from a 3.15, or a 3.31. For example, the speed at 7000rpms in 1st with a 3.31 gear on a 28" tire is 42mph, and if you went all the way to a 4.56 at the same rpm with the same diameter tire, you will be at 31mph, not that drastic imo for those that think your going to be automatically having traction issues because you don't have 3.31's

This comes down to several things:

1. Combo - depending on what intake you run N/A will determine where peak power is and where you ultimately want to cross at.
2. Tire to gear ratio - you have already started down this path....my recommendation is to set a MPH goal and then determine what gear/tire size you need to cross at the top of 3rd.
3. Power adder - this goes back to #1. I would recommend getting the car on a dyno post install, dialed in, to determine the power curve (don't focus on an HP number....that is meaningless as we have proven in this thread). Then go back and revisit #2 above.
 
Last edited:

casper gt

forum member
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Posts
121
Reaction score
0
Location
Creighton Pa
Ive been laying low for awhile but I thought this is a perfect thread to comment on

as most know I'm on my 2nd a6 car and have tried stock converters and 5c converters on both along with 4.10s and 3.31s on both.

I have also tried stock, boss and cj intakes with multiple throttle bodies and cold air kits.

I have finally come to where I have to agree that for a bolt on car, 3.31s, a bunch of converter of your choice and a boss intake, stock throttle body, airaid CAI are pretty much the way to go for a bolt on car.
 

wbt

forum member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
Ive been laying low for awhile but I thought this is a perfect thread to comment on

as most know I'm on my 2nd a6 car and have tried stock converters and 5c converters on both along with 4.10s and 3.31s on both.

I have also tried stock, boss and cj intakes with multiple throttle bodies and cold air kits.

I have finally come to where I have to agree that for a bolt on car, 3.31s, a bunch of converter of your choice and a boss intake, stock throttle body, airaid CAI are pretty much the way to go for a bolt on car.

I am glad to see us come to agreement. :)
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top