5.0 long block weight, & water pump ?

[06whipple]

medium boost (10-12psi) 7.0 making 900 foot pounds of torque...900 peak horsepower...I'd blow 20 grand on that for sure. 9 second daily driver.....who wouldn't want that.

 

[kmracer]

Very LS1 of them, don't you think?

no, ls1's are attached to the mains, the hemi's have this design though.

 

[kmracer]

and to the people doubting the capabilities of the new 6.2 and its heads, a a stroked/bored (427) made 1000 hp all motor. when is the last time ANY production based ford did that?

 

[19COBRA93]

and to the people doubting the capabilities of the new 6.2 and its heads, a a stroked/bored (427) made 1000 hp all motor. when is the last time ANY production based ford did that?

Link to details?

 

[kmracer]

mmmmmmm.... well, i'd have to dig, it was tested in a roush's drag car a year or so ago, and S.A.M built the motor.

 

[19COBRA93]

mmmmmmm.... well, i'd have to dig, it was tested in a roush's drag car a year or so ago, and S.A.M built the motor.

Link or it didn't happen...

 

[kmracer]

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/mmfp_0711_ford_mustang_roush_ethanol_fuel/index.html


i'd say the new 6.2 is worth the wait.

 

[kmracer]

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.c...ford_mustang_roush_ethanol_fuel/photo_11.html


...if that doesnt work. i think the car ran 9.2 or something.

 

[US-1]

S.A.M. didn't build that engine. The original design came from Ford's Experimental Engine Division and was further engineered at Roush. It was normally aspirated on E85 and ran 9.0's in Don's backhalfed '05 car with a G-Force GF-2000 transmission.

 

[kmracer]

obviously it was designed at ford, i KNOW there was one floating around at S.A.M, weather it was this particular motor or not, im not sure.

 

[US-1]

I know who owns the one floating around S.A.M. Shop here in Houston that specializes in LS-based engines but likes to tinker.

Everything Bowles runs comes direct from Roush.

 

[06whipple]

Hey SD...got a question for you. So what is the rough hp limit for 93 octane with a blown 4.6 stroked to 302?

 

[Germeezy3]

When you realize the Ford GT 5.4 will make 1000 rwhp with stock internals, than you think about using E85 or E98 with the airflow and fuel flow possible with the dual injector Ford GT heads or the 5.0 heads with the DI bosses drilled. With the displacement to take full advantage of the airflow and low to medium revs your looking at an engine that will make an easy 1,000 rwhp without a huge amount of boost or radical cams.

The Boss 302 makes 440 hp from 5 liters, and without direct injection. Port injection has a few benefits over direct injection as far as throttle response and response at high rpm. But with the DI bosses drilled and E85 the sky is the limit...high compression and high boost. With the ability to use port injection and direct injection and vary DCR at will.

 

[US-1]

Hey SD...got a question for you. So what is the rough hp limit for 93 octane with a blown 4.6 stroked to 302?

Depends.

 

[06whipple]

Hope the 6.2 goes somewhere...all this talk is really making me want more displacement. Not to change the subject but I was browsing around PatentStorm today to see what kind of shit may be coming in the future and found some interesting Patents granted to Ford...they got some smart fucking engineers working for them.

 

[06whipple]

Depends.

I wasn't asking what diapers you wear...I asked a legitimate fucking question man...come on. I'm doing a lot of reading and searching and can't find a definite answer (talkin ball park here ). You seem to have a lot of respect on here so thought you would be a good person to ask.

 

[06whipple]

I wasn't trying to be a dick...just thought you would appreciate the attitude

 

[US-1]

First: the only person around here in diapers is Matt D.

Second: there is no definitive answer on that question. Truth is it all depends on a variety of conditions which all contribute to octane volatility. What works in an n/a engine won't work in a supercharged engine. What works in centrifugals won't work in a roots or twin screw. None of the above will work with turbo(s). Same answer you'll get on that "magic horsepower number with stock connecting rods" question.

It depends. Power adder, engine mileage, plugs, plug gap, fuel pressure, fuel volume, pressure in the cylinders (cams/boost/timing), available fuel quality, driving conditions, and driver common sense. All play a role in how the engine tolerates octane.

 

[06whipple]

First: the only person around here in diapers is Matt D.

Second: there is no definitive answer on that question. Truth is it all depends on a variety of conditions which all contribute to octane volatility. What works in an n/a engine won't work in a supercharged engine. What works in centrifugals won't work in a roots or twin screw. None of the above will work with turbo(s). Same answer you'll get on that "magic horsepower number with stock connecting rods" question.

It depends. Power adder, engine mileage, plugs, plug gap, fuel pressure, fuel volume, pressure in the cylinders (cams/boost/timing), available fuel quality, driving conditions, and driver common sense. All play a role in how the engine tolerates octane.

You're an engineer aren't you? Making this difficult. On 93 octane with up to 10% ethanol in it ??I'm thinking new 298 or 302 stroker, stock heads and cams (not sure on compression), whipple 15-17 psi(steeda 10 rib), stock throttle body, stock exhaust manifolds and pipes, aftermarket mufflers, not sure on injector size or if I will need boost a pump, 6500 rpm, safe tune. Is 700ft lbs, 700 hp peak possible

 

[US-1]

Dual degrees. Mechanical and Chemical.