HP Comfort levels

tabstang

Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Posts
119
Reaction score
43
It's all relative - but i agree more is better. My wife's 305 crank hp 911 is way fun but my 490+ rwhp 07 gt is also big fun in a different way. )Now i want a 911 turbo just to feel want it can do.) Torque is beautiful thing. I've owned 4 s197s ranging from 245 crank (07 v6) to 590 rwhp, and every one was fun. I gotta say the 590 hp one was a little nuts. With a twin disc racing clutch it would get hairy real fast and head for the ditch of you weren't on your toes. Was it too much? No but it wasn't a cushy highway cruiser either, with full racing, heim joint suspension. I haven't driven anything more powerful but I'd like to get my hands on a big muscle challenger, they seem to handle that juice pretty well.
 

tabstang

Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Posts
119
Reaction score
43
BTW to put it in perspective I've replaced a roush M 90 with a Whipple 2.3. So i guess 365 rwhp isn't enough (for me), but 590 is more than i need in a s197. 450 Torque seems to be pretty good for this car. More than that and streetable tires struggle to hang on.
 

BottleRocket

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Posts
71
Reaction score
29
I just sold my 2012 Boss 302. For some reason 444HP seem about right. Lots of passing power, just the right amount of burble. For some reason I decided to keep my 300-330HP 2008 GT/CS. I can beat it and modify it to my heart's content and it's more fun to drive because I'm not driving a 4K mile Boss. My goal for the GT/CS is 450 NA.

Boss and GT-CS.jpg
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
I just sold my 2012 Boss 302. For some reason 444HP seem about right.

My goal for the GT/CS is 450 NA.
I get this.

I'd certainly be OK with 450-ish myself, as along as it doesn't involve a power adder. For a corner-carver, fine throttle resolution > stupid-strong response on tip-in every time.


Norm
 

TRC51

forum member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Posts
1,058
Reaction score
21
There is a lot of torque, horsepower and gearing comments going around. I think it's actually all about the complete package... acceleration being a critical part of it. I have an M90 on my 08 Bullitt that puts me at 385 to the wheels. I love driving it... well, other than the TR3650... because it pulls well, sounds awesome and just feels powerful... but I want more because something is missing.

On the other hand, last year I picked up a Passat with the VR6 in it... and it also puts a smile on my face. The car makes what... maybe 250hp... and it's a rip to drive. It pulls super hard down low and off the jump. I would bet I could outrun myself in the 1/8 with the VW when put up against my Bullitt. The DSG transmission, the gearing, the torque... all of it, is what makes the car super fun to drive... and it still cruises nice too. I don't feel it needs anything more... even though there is always the temptation for a tune or exhaust. Someone mentioned it about a mini cooper earlier in the thread.

So what you need to come up with is something that pulls really hard down low and reasonable well at speed.... and also makes you smile with the sounds and driving experience. That pull is what makes the smile... regardless of how it's done. Combine all of it and you MIGHT not get the HP bug. LOL
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
So what you need to come up with is something that pulls really hard down low and reasonable well at speed.... and also makes you smile with the sounds and driving experience. That pull is what makes the smile... regardless of how it's done. Combine all of it and you MIGHT not get the HP bug. LOL

That is pretty easy. It would be a coyote + tune. Must adjust cam timing in tune to get to 400+ to wheels. The only thing I am missing is a set of cnc ported heads. lol There is likely another 100 hp there NA, and spin it to the limit of the crank sensor. Its good to 7800 from what Ive read.
 

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,211
Reaction score
1,093
I get this.

I'd certainly be OK with 450-ish myself, as along as it doesn't involve a power adder. For a corner-carver, fine throttle resolution > stupid-strong response on tip-in every time.


Norm
How do you propose to achieve 450 crank hp... on a 05-10 eng ? It may well be doable, but a power adder would be a lot cheaper /simpler...and heavier.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
How do you propose to achieve 450 crank hp... on a 05-10 eng ? It may well be doable, but a power adder would be a lot cheaper /simpler...and heavier.
450 at the crank was Bottle's number. I just ran with it rather than make up one of my own.

But if you start with the current Bullitt tune at 480 and scale it down by displacement (no stroking the 4.6), you're already at 430 or so. Which would be entirely close enough for me (I don't want a long-stroke undersquare motor design either). That makes it possible; what it would take for somebody to pull it off is a separate matter (4-valve heads, a couple points more compression, and direct+port injection would be my first guess at a starting point).

Power adders are the path well trodden, so I'll give you easier. Not sure about 'simpler' - while most of the details have been hashed out you're still adding complexity. Weight is of course a negative, particularly given where that weight is usually added.


Norm
 
Last edited:

Dino Dino Bambino

I have a red car
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Posts
3,880
Reaction score
1,751
Location
Cyprus
The highest I've seen from a NA 4.6 3V on 93 octane was 393rwhp SAE, and the highest from any NA 3V was 426rwhp SAE (323 stroker on 93 octane). Both had all the bells and whistles you could throw at them.
Then again, we should really be looking at TQ rather than HP. A nice, meaty torque curve over the rpm range where you normally operate the engine, and just enough to make it usable and fun.
 

06 T-RED S/C GT

forum member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Posts
2,270
Reaction score
369
Location
Carnegie, PA
I’m running like 400 at the crank and 3.73s, I’ve considered jumping to 4.10s but for typical street driving and highway cruising the gains don’t outweigh the cost. While I would love to have closer to 5-600 for the laughs of driving it I’d never actually USE that power.
This ^^^^^^ :waytogo:
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
The highest I've seen from a NA 4.6 3V on 93 octane was 393rwhp SAE, and the highest from any NA 3V was 426rwhp SAE (323 stroker on 93 octane). Both had all the bells and whistles you could throw at them.
Presumably still 3-valve motors, right?


Then again, we should really be looking at TQ rather than HP. A nice, meaty torque curve over the rpm range where you normally operate the engine, and just enough to make it usable and fun.
Agreed. Area under the torque curve over your rpm range, to be a bit picky.

Gets a bit tricky for a true dual-purpose car though, even with things like variable valve timing being available.


Norm
 

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,211
Reaction score
1,093
450 at the crank was Bottle's number. I just ran with it rather than make up one of my own.

But if you start with the current Bullitt tune at 480 and scale it down by displacement (no stroking the 4.6), you're already at 430 or so. Which would be entirely close enough for me (I don't want a long-stroke undersquare motor design either). That makes it possible; what it would take for somebody to pull it off is a separate matter (4-valve heads, a couple points more compression, and direct+port injection would be my first guess at a starting point).

Power adders are the path well trodden, so I'll give you easier. Not sure about 'simpler' - while most of the details have been hashed out you're still adding complexity. Weight is of course a negative, particularly given where that weight is usually added.


Norm


I took the..'easy' way out on my 2010. M90, 5.7 psi boost, twin 62mm TB, K+N filter, LT's, 94 tune.
482 crank hp / 470 crank tq. Yeah it adds close to 100 lbs to the front end. But it was all plug and play. Good enough for my DD requirements...and pulls like a mo-fo. I honestly don't think I could handle much more. 305 mm MPSS rears, 285 fronts, DSS-DS, eaton tru trac LSD and whiteline watts link. Then the roush suspension package + a bunch of BMR /steeda bits and pieces.

But it's a long slog in 4th gear (1:1). This is where it really needs 1 more gear. The 3-4 shift is at 140 kmh (87 mph)....then maxed out at 240 kmh (150 mph @ 6 krpm). 6 krpm in 3rd gear (87 mph)..then when up-shifted to 4th, drops down to 3500 rpm..then the long slog.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
But it's a long slog in 4th gear (1:1). This is where it really needs 1 more gear. The 3-4 shift is at 140 kmh (87 mph)....then maxed out at 240 kmh (150 mph @ 6 krpm). 6 krpm in 3rd gear (87 mph)..then when up-shifted to 4th, drops down to 3500 rpm..then the long slog.
That can't be a TR3650 transmission . . . 87 in 3rd @ 6000 would be about 115 in 4th at the same rpm. The 3650's huge gap at speed is between 4th and 5th.


Norm
 

OX1

forum member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Posts
528
Reaction score
185
Location
Jackson, NJ
Anything over stock coyote power (and even that might be too much on 18+) is a waste on the
street with 2WD upon launch. Those who own(owned) a low RPM, 400ish/+ ft-lb @ the wheels, AWD car know what I mean. Those that haven't driven that type of setup as a daily for several weeks, need to.

My Fusion will put down very close to this 60', even in the rain on 235 all seasons.
Even in the dead of winter it will be close, since it doesn't need a summer tire for straight line traction.
20181030_202306.jpg


Living in the Pine Barrens, on any given day, there is at least some sand in most intersections.
Makes for an almost impossible launch on the Stang, even with new 315 Nitto NT05R's that are
now my street setup, on the rear.

For comparison, when my 14 was stock (meaning engine power and suspension), this was the best 60' I got with a 295 summer tire, barely below 2.0 60'

20161007_222022.jpg


Atco is prepped very well (especially @ beginning of the night), so I had no massive
loss of time from wheelspin


Now that doesn't mean I don't love the power from 30-90, nothing else I own even comes close.
 
Last edited:

Laga

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Posts
991
Reaction score
518
Location
Chicago
How do you propose to achieve 450 crank hp... on a 05-10 eng ? It may well be doable, but a power adder would be a lot cheaper /simpler...and heavier.
The weight of the supercharger is a moot point after I plant my 300 lb ass in the seat.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
The weight of the supercharger is a moot point after I plant my 300 lb ass in the seat.
Yes and no.

Yes, the importance of the SC weight increase diminishes.

But no, it's still located high up basically over the front tires (about the worst possible place except at the dragstrip AND you've got daylight between the front tires and the pavement.


Norm
 

Charly

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Posts
29
Reaction score
11
I own a 2001 SVT Lightning @ 380 HP, a 2007 Mustang GT @ 350 HP,(Ford cams, long tube headers, Flow Mater Exhaust, 5 speed, Lito tuned) and a 2016 Taurus SHO 380 HP, each is a pleasure to drive. The Lighting brutally throws you back in the seat, the Mustang roars through the gears and the Taurus is so smooth you don't even know you are exceeding the speed limit. Each car has a level of comfort it just depends on what I want to feel on a given day. The level of performance is really limited by the ability of the driver and the conditions and types of roads you are driving. GT.jpg f150 (2).jpg
 

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,211
Reaction score
1,093
That can't be a TR3650 transmission . . . 87 in 3rd @ 6000 would be about 115 in 4th at the same rpm. The 3650's huge gap at speed is between 4th and 5th.


Norm
It's a 5r55 automatic. 3.31 rear end gear. 27.4" tall rear tire. At 6000 rpm, its:
1st- 43.5 mph
2nd - 62 mph
3rd - 87 mph
4th -150 mph
5th - 200 mph ( maybe on a dyno)

My 2nd gear is 14% lower than 2nd gear in the TR3650
My 3rd gear is 16.5% lower than 3rd gear in the TR3650.
My 4th gear is 1:1 ratio.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
Odd . . . from a database of transmission gear ratios with a speeds-in-gears page I'm only able to match three of those speeds in gears with any of the 5R55 transmissions. If I match your 62 in 2nd @ 6000 rpm, which gives the closest overall matching, 3rd and 4th become the odd men out (3.22/2.29/1.55/1.00/0.71 giving 44/62/92/142/200). That 1.55 3rd to 1.00 4th is still a pretty big gap for the relatively high speeds involved, though.


Norm
 

Rick Simons

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Posts
250
Reaction score
61
I don't know what hp/tq mine makes, but I can say the mods I've done are worth the expense and the effort. I seldom go looking for a race; it's fun enough for me just to drive around with a cammy motor and a great sounding exhaust.
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top