Anyone else read the 451hp NA 3 valve motor write up in Dec 2008 MM&FF?

[MexGT]

could it be Androdz in a new acct? LMAO

 

[Hitman]

1) Capitol Letters Your Nit Picking About Capitol Letters ... Ye
2) Got Shot Down... Still Waiting For Someone To Find An Example Of An S197 Making That Power Of Those Mods
3) Knife To A Gun Fight.. This Is A Forum... Are You Kidding

I Own A 2005 S197 Because I Made A Comparison Im A Chevy Fan What It This .. Instead Of You Telling Me What Im Saying Doing Or Thinking Is Wrong .. Find A Mustang With Thoe Numbers

You don't own an S197. If you do, let's see some pics. Mods? RWHP? ET's?

What a .

 

[SoundGuyDave]

1) Capitol Letters Your Nit Picking About Capitol Letters ... Ye

Huh? Yeah I am bitching about RaNdOm CaPiTaL LeTtErs... I don't understand the meaning of "...Ye" though. Was that a typo of "Yo!", and I think you may find that inserting a comma after the first use of the word "letters" would help people that don't move their mouth when they read understand what you're trying to say. It's about communication skills. I THINK what you meant to say was: "Capitol letters? You're nit-picking aobut captol letters?!" It's much easier to read that way, and your intent comes across much better than something like "Yo! I Got Mad Skillz With Stylz, Yo!"

2) Got Shot Down... Still Waiting For Someone To Find An Example Of An S197 Making That Power Of Those Mods

Actually, I never said you "Got Shot Down..." My point number two was what you listed as number one... I see math was not your strong suit either. I think the comment you're referring to was in my point number three, where I said that "you got slapped down" which has a completely different meaning than "shot down."

3) Knife To A Gun Fight.. This Is A Forum... Are You Kidding

Sigh... Grasshopper, you've got a lot to learn. You came in here espousing (look it up) a particular viewpoint as fact, with nothing to back your position, and you can't deal with the resulting demurring responses. If you make a statement, be prepared to defend it. In this case, you brought a pen knife into a room full of guys with bazookas. Deal with it. It is a forum, and I suggest that you look up the history of "forum," particularly the meaning behind the word. That may give you a clue as to why you have been getting anally violated here.

I Own A 2005 S197 Because I Made A Comparison Im A Chevy Fan What It This .. Instead Of You Telling Me What Im Saying Doing Or Thinking Is Wrong .. Find A Mustang With Thoe Numbers

Wow... What are you trying to say here? All I got out of that was the following:

1) You own a 2005 S197. Congrats. Most of us here own S197s as well, hence the name of the forum.
2) The reason that you own an S197 is "because you made a comparison". Of what? Apples and machine guns? The S197 and a G20 conversion van?
3) You're a Chevy fan. Cool, turn in your S197 and go buy a Cobalt.
4) "What It This" Huh? Don't get it.
5) That instead of critiquing your "mad forum skillz," I should go out and do your research for you. I think not. Do your own work.

In short, I have to use your favorite emoticon:

I happen to agree with the majority in this thread, even you, that the 450rwhp target for a N/A 4.6L mod-motor is a pipe dream in streetable trim. That said, the only thing that you have contibuted to this thread, and by extension this forum, is entertainment value. It may interest you to know that I do happen to know of an LS-1 powered Mustang that competes in a road-race series! It has yet to finish a single race, all due to engine issues... And no, I'm not making that up.

Learn how to spell, learn about the wonders of math, learn about sentence structure, then learn about forum etiquitte, and THEN come back and be prepared to support your argument without going into straw-man, ad hominem, or circular logic.

 

[US-1]

I believe JDMIII's car probably makes a little more than 450 at the crank. All motor. And if it does have more than 281 cubic inches, it's not by much. I doubt those few more cubic inches made much of a difference.

JIII has much more than 281 cubic inches.

 

[Hitman]

owned!

 

[SoundGuyDave]

Maybe you guys can castrate him and hang him from the rafters for not drinking the Koolaid here.
Maybe call the Obama brown-shirt goon squad out to see why he isn't towing the party line?
What is wrong with doubting the numbers in the MM & FF article?
I think the OP is dead on correct and the numbers are more than a little fishy.
Somebody makes a comparison to an LSx and they are deemed "Chevy fan boy"?
Androdz was clearly an asshole begging for what he got, but why are you all attacking somebody for questioning MM & FF or Livernois on these numbers? Are you a bunch of Livernois fan boys then?

I doubt 15 year olds even know about horsepower calculations based on RPM & TQ.
I read the article in MM & FF the day before this post was put up and I thought it was BS myself. Lets see the dyno graphs from Livernois or disregard the information as completely suspect.

I don't think you're getting the point upon which 05Murder is skewering himself... It's not about his position on the numbers or the article, which I agree are highly suspect, it's the way he's teeing off on everybody that is agreeing with his premise. I'm not a Livernois customer, nor fan. I have no horse in the race, and have no opinion of them or their work. If he just said something like "Yeah, I'd like to see a N/A Mustang with those mods make that kind of power, but I don't think it can," then this whole discussion would be moot. Unfortunately, he puked a bunch of unintelligible pablum all over this thread, made illogical and invalid comparisons to an engine that is radically larger, and then whined about getting called for it.

 

[racevert]

Point taken on 05murda-
Okay but the article was not about reaching 451 RWHP either. This was done on an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno. So that 451 HP would be be reduced by 15% or whatever due to drivetrain loss. What I dont believe is the overall increase in power from heads and cams only from 313 HP to 451 HP with no other changes.
138 HP is more than I would expect to see from those two mods, and that is what I find hard to believe in this article. The numbers given do not make sense mathematically and it is suspicious data at best.

 

[don_w]

OK, so it seems that a noob has caused some disturbance here. This is a good topic, and it deserves the discussion its getting. But not the personal bashing. Let's try to keep this one a little more focussed and give Mike at Livernois a chance to come back in, too.

So to all of you forum regulars... if you want to "engage" 05murda in the IFC forum, go for it. But let's not do it here.

Thanks!

 

[Hitman]

BOOO!

 

[GERMANSHEPERD]

Im not bashing anyone but that article was pure BULLSHIT plain and simple......hey everything in the media is true, just ask Obama voters!

 

[mike@livernois]

Guys, do you mind taking this off topic bickering elsewhere? Thanks!

Mike, Rick,

The single biggest question I have is this: Why doesn't the HP listed for the given rpm and torque equal reality? HP is a CALCULATED value, so there is NO reason that the numbers in the article are different than what I calculated in Excel.

To clarify about the before condition, the article spent a whole paragraph explaining that the 313hp was from the engine on the dyno WITH the headers and WITHOUT any of the accessories other than the water pump, which was the same condition for the heads and heads + cam tests as well:

"They first dyno'd a bone-stock Three-Valve engine that serves as an R&D tool. In stock trim, with just a set of long-tube Kooks headers, the engine produced 313 hp at 5,500 rpm, while torque came in at 314 lb-ft at 4,300 rpm.
Did Ford underrate the engine, since we saw 313 hp? In all fairness, the 300 number is probably close. Remember, our dyno engine wore a set of long-tube headers, which probably hurt a little in stock trim. But, more importantly, we ran without the accessories like A/C, power steering, and alternator. Another deviation from stock was that this engine was run with an open throttle body thanks to the FAST XFI fuel injection system. No restrictive inlet tubes or MAF sensor to contend with, and the computer had a custom tune. The VCT was also locked out. So it was slightly better than the way Ford tests its engine."

Here is the absolute worse math error in the dyno sheets:

rpm: 6800
torque listed (heads + cams): 285 lb-ft
hp listed (heads + cams): 439 hp

Math: hp = 6800 rpm * 285 lb-ft / 5252 or = 369 hp

But they have 439 hp listed in the table, so that 439 - 369 = 70 hp ADDED to the listed hp! That is not some "correction factor". Hell, the hp is wrong for all but FOUR entries in the table! FOUR! And that is across the stock, the heads only, AND the heads + cams runs. Four of them are correct...

I'll be blunt: Someone is "cooking the books" here. I don't know who, it could be Livernois, it could be MM&FF. Heck, it could be some individual working at either of these organizations. Whoever it is, they obviously do NOT understand the relationship between HP, torque and rpm, or it wouldn't have been so simple to prove the data was fake.

Also, before anyone decides to jump on me and claim I have something against Livernois, I do not. I have never done business with them, good or bad. Plus, these stage 3 heads are on my list for the engine build up I want to do in the future. Hell, that's why I paid this article such close attention in the first place!

And just so you understand my background, I am a mechanical and electrical engineer by training and a process engineer by trade. I also took a LOT of internal combustion engine design electives while in college as well. So I DO know how to look at a chart full of numbers and make sense of it.

Wow, before I type anything serious in nature I can say that some of the other posts have made reading through trying to find the original topic at least fun.

Anyways, back to what you were saying RRRoamer. I apoligize for taking so long to get a post back. I got pretty tied up here but so far with the time I did have here is what I have found. I think that some of the errors seem to be based on the original excel spreadsheet with the various dyno graphs from different tests being jumbled up. After looking over it again and again to try and find ryhme or reason as to what was what and where the issue was I thought at first it was random. The data just appeared mixed up with no real intentional order to it. Then after looking though it seems as some of the cells and rows that had alternate tests with different configurations are mixed into these tests. The problem is it is not every cell or a complete row that the data looks like that.

At first I was thrown off because the peak number seemed right at first glance but when I started comparing the individual numbers down in different cells I started noticing cross ups where data was flipped. So that started making more sense. The peak number is right, but the data that is under the curve is mixed up.

So, I am pretty sure that MM&FF would have nothing to gain by jumbling the numbers up. I guess maybe they could sell more magazines if the numbers were higher but I am still pretty sure that they don't have any concern as to the numbers. As for Livernois of course a higher number looks better but based on how the data is distributed with the peak number being the important one in most instances as far as advertising goes and since the peak number is one of the only correct numbers I would say it's fair to assume that again there was no intention. That and the fact that I did get to see some of the original numbers and spreadsheets with dyno graphs on them I am pretty sure that this is just a case of the numbers getting transposed in the translation between us and the magazine guys. It was a mistake and I do apoligize for any incovenience it has caused. I am going to post the first dyno graph that I had mentoined previously that was a chassis dyno test of that exact same combo but in a car. Hopefully some better numbers might shed some light on it.

Don't let this brief interruption stop the playful bickering though. I was starting to enjoy it.

Thanks
Mike

 

[Vapor08gt]

Mike beat me to it.

 

[mike@livernois]

Here is that dyno sheet I was talking about. I assume that everybody is familiar with Steeda. I figured a nice outside source for dyno numbers would be helpful.

This car has the following mods

Stock Shortblock
Livernois Stage 3 heads
Comp Cams 127350 (Stage 4) cams
Kooks longtubes
CAI
Steeda Tune

I can't remember the exhaust system right off hand. I will have to look for that.

If there are any questions or anything just let me know.

Thanks
Mike

 

[Ray's 08 GT]

So the conclusion is that 451hp peak is roughly accurate for the stripped accessory engine?

 

[DKO]

So the conclusion is that 451hp peak is roughly accurate for the stripped accessory engine?

Not just that, but with no drivetrain loss! 450hp (as tested in the article) is possible when no drivetrain loss is factored in (15%) and no accessories are present. The article holds water. The numbers could be slightly inflated, but not by much.

 

[DKO]

Im not bashing anyone but that article was pure BULLSHIT plain and simple......hey everything in the media is true, just ask Obama voters!

It's not BS... Livernois just proved that the numbers could be slightly inflated, but not by more than 10-15whp. JIMIII's car is a good example of NA power potential, as is other cars Livernois has put together.

Just because it's a 4.6 doesn't mean it can't produce big numbers. Same as NA LS1s that put down 475whp NA. I don't think 380whp is that far fetched.

 

[Wyld]

could it be Androdz in a new acct? LMAO

Thats exactly what i was thinking!

 

[Steedman07]

Now that its all squared away, where is the dipshit with the typing problem? It looks earily familiar like some other shit stain that was e-thugging it before

 

[RRRoamer]

It's not BS... Livernois just proved that the numbers could be slightly inflated, but not by more than 10-15whp. JIMIII's car is a good example of NA power potential, as is other cars Livernois has put together.

No, they didn't. All Mike really said was that some of the numbers might have been flipped around. That just doesn't explain how EVERY FREAKING HP NUMBER IS WRONG (except for 4!). These are NOT close. hp = torque * rpm / 5252. It's a law, not a suggestion (actually, it is a DEFINITION which is even better than a "law of nature" or such crap). So if someone tells you that they made 300 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm and 600 hp at the same rpm, you KNOW they are full of shit. Assuming the torque as correct, they only made 286 hp. If the hp was actually correct, then they HAD to make 630 lb-ft of torque to produce 600 hp at 5000 rpm.

Period.

Try this number on for size: 451 hp is 44% increase over 313 hp. Do you REALLY think a set of ported stock heads and new cams will REALLY give you a 44% increase in VE given the test situations?? I sure don't.

So Mike, can you post the original dyno sheets? That might help to clarify what the hell is going on. One way or another Livernois REALLY needs to get to the bottom of this. If someone at your end is screwing with the numbers to make things look better than they really are, that needs to be stopped before your image gets killed. If someone doesn't know what they are doing on the dyno and are managing to screw up the numbers generated (somehow...), they REALLY need to be trained before your image gets killed. If MM&FF is fucking around with the numbers to make a pretty story, that HAS to be stopped before both your image and the reputation of MM&FF is completely in the toilet.

 

[DKO]

blah blah blah.

451 x .85 = 383.35. That right there figures the 15% drivetrain loss. 380whp CAN and HAS been done. There's members on here with 350whp that run heads and cam packages that are much milder than Livernois stage 4 heads and those comps.

I'm not arguing about the torque and hp curve intersecting at 5250, nor am I arguing about numbers being flipped and what have you. I'm arguing that 451 before drivetrain and accessory loss is completely plausible.