Turbo 4.0 or N/A 3v?

[Speedboosted]

I'm looking for some opinions from others on this board. Please, don't say coyote swap...I've already thought about that and it is simply more money than what I want to spend on this car. I will not trade it in for a GT either as there is way too much time and money into the suspension and adding all the little touches to the car that I like. I could go over to SVTP and get answers like that, so lets keep it between these two options here, thanks guys.

The car in question: 2006 4.0 with just under 69k miles on it. Has been in the family since brand new as I bought it from a relative who took pretty good care of it (basically went to the dealer at the scheduled intervals). Got it in August of 2012 completely stock with 48k miles.

Now has a bunch of suspension things that really make it an awesome handling car for what it is. Bilstein's, camber plates, BMR Watts, adjustable arms, big sway bars, H&R springs, etc. Also have an 8.8 sitting here that is going in within the next two weeks no matter what happens with the drivetrain.

I don't drag race much, I got a couple shop cars (TVS GT500's) to do that with, although I would take either setup once or twice just to see what it could do. Main usage is driving around daily and terrorizing back roads, 3 or so road course events, and 1 or 2 hill climbs. Maybe 1 or 2 AutoX events but that is TBD.

Option A: Powerhouse turbo kit from a member on here, along with an adapter plate and some other small things. Basically it would be a 4.0 with upgraded valve springs, the turbo kit, and a TR-6060 behind it. Wouldn't do anything crazy with boost levels, probably keep it at 8 psi most of the time and bump it up to 10-12 for special occasions. Without a doubt it would make more power then a bolt on 3v.

Option B: 2005 3v motor with 19k miles and ecu/wiring. Comes with a stock clutch hanging onto the back of it. It would probably end up with the same 6060 onto the back of it with a different clutch of course. This motor will NOT ever seen forced induction. Most "radical" mod it would see would be cams. I'm sure with the basic intake, exhaust, tuning it could get close to 300 whp which is certainly more than what I have now but nowhere near what the turbo setup would make.

Now where it gets tricky...
-Turbo setup undoubtably makes more power as it would be easy 350 whp and up depending on what I want to do with boost.
-Turbo setup will also be a little more expensive overall, but within the budget.
-3v swap will have a broader power band, which is better for road course use.
-3v swap would stay in the car when it comes time to sell it where as the turbo kit would be removed at that time.

I know N/A is definitely preferred for road racing, but it's not like this is a dedicated AI car that sees the track every weekend. And then it's probably the last thing to think about, but the turbo setup should get a little better highway mileage as I do travel on the highway each day.

Aaaaaand discuss!

 

[weather man]

3V V8

 

[Speedboosted]

3V V8

...because?

 

[MGT2009]

Because V8.

 

[Wraith]

3v full bolt on motor would make a fun road race motor in my opinion. Also I think more reliable, less heat, broader power band, predictable power delivery thus allowing to focus on suspension and other items and remain consistent.

 

[JimC]

A turbo 4.0 is a lot of fun and the Powerhouse turbo set up is a proven kit.

 

[eighty6gt]

5.3/?? ls with heads/cam with direct shift t56 and custom drive shaft.

 

[stkjock]

Coyote swap

 

[JUSTA3V]

Voodoo swap?

 

[KatoS197]

I'd do an N/A 3V. Like you said, "broader powerband". Makes for a stronger Road Course car and power is more readily available for DD situations. I DD'd my 3V and was happy with the mileage.

Even though, you've already stated how each swap would go and ultimately end, I really think this another one of those personal preference topics.

Personally, I'd want hear a V8 soundtrack, especially if it ends up with a cam. Just the sound every day would sway me to do a 3V swap over the 4.0L.

 

[BruceH]

Is the 4.0 forced induction ready? IIRC it's built very stout from the factory but it's only something I've heard, not something I know as fact.

If a stock 4.0 can handle boost then go with boost. It's almost always the most cost effective way to get power. You should be able to set a turbo up to have boost early in the rpm range for a flat, broad torque curve. Forced induction cures head flow issues and displacement issues.

I'm pretty sure that a properly set up turbo will create more than enough power to cause an "oh shit" situation if you aren't paying attention while driving.

 

[JimC]

Is the 4.0 forced induction ready? IIRC it's built very stout from the factory but it's only something I've heard, not something I know as fact.

If a stock 4.0 can handle boost then go with boost. It's almost always the most cost effective way to get power. You should be able to set a turbo up to have boost early in the rpm range for a flat, broad torque curve. Forced induction cures head flow issues and displacement issues.

I'm pretty sure that a properly set up turbo will create more than enough power to cause an "oh shit" situation if you aren't paying attention while driving.

The stock 4.0 can handle a lot. A friend of mine is running 18lbs of boost with his powerhouse turbo. I ran 12lbs with my Xcharger Xtreme on my 2006 - and drove it 203,000 miles; that car is still running strong with >220,000 miles on it.

 

[BruceH]

The stock 4.0 can handle a lot. A friend of mine is running 18lbs of boost with his powerhouse turbo. I ran 12lbs with my Xcharger Xtreme on my 2006 - and drove it 203,000 miles; that car is still running strong with >220,000 miles on it.

Do you know what the 18psi translates to in rwhp/tq and/or quarter mile times and speed?

 

[JeremyH]

I wouldn't do much more than 10psi on stock valve springs that seemd to be the most limiting factory we found when we were going to do a kit.

 

[JimC]

Do you know what the 18psi translates to in rwhp/tq and/or quarter mile times and speed?

I don't recall his RWHP and torque, but he has run mid/low 11's at 120+

 

[JimC]

I wouldn't do much more than 10psi on stock valve springs that seemd to be the most limiting factory we found when we were going to do a kit.

Agreed, higher boost, especially with a turbo, will induce valve float and upgraded valve springs are a must.

 

[Mustang Mark]

Turbo sixer gets my vote.

 

[BruceH]

I don't recall his RWHP and torque, but he has run mid/low 11's at 120+

So probably somewhere around 500rhwp.

Do I have this correct, change valve springs and that's it? That's a no brainer, especially with only 12 springs to change.

 

[Speedboosted]

Bruce, the 4.0 seems to be a very stout motor. They come with thick forged rods. Valve springs are all of $140 to swap as well. Of course, clutch and trans will not be very happy and will eventually need to be replaced so it's a wash there for cost.

In this current situation, the 3v is actually cheaper. Motor with wiring and computer is 2k, while turbo kit will be $3000-3500. Of course the mods to get a 3v to some place where I'd like it will probably be more then $1500.

Today I went to a couple dealerships and drove 2 manual 3v's that they had and I was fairly happy with it. Both were stocker than stock, but even so it felt like something I could definitely enjoy for a while. Beating on a boosted stock motor concerns me slightly, even though the 4.0 is stout.

By the way, Bruce you have a PM coming your way

 

[i am ryan]

The 3V picks up a lot from minor suspension work (which you already have), and even a Bama tune. Completely different cars at that point. For me personally, the reliability of an NA car would take the cake since it would just see DD duty and you already have track cars. Just turn the key and go.