Mustang Accessories

96blackgt54 · 11-21-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3dn3ck

illwill has been a rockstar helping out everyone else with experience points and pushing on the limits. I think just having him around helps people realize how attainable the swap is.

INDEED!

I think we all should give our self a pat on the back, for just input in this forum.
AND around of applause for "r3dneck" for mataining the forum!

It's good to go to a place and not get made fun of because you want a N/A 5.4l 2V.

myillwillinc · 11-21-2007, 11:36 AM

i haven't been made fun of, but i have been told i was nuts for trying it.

most forums i'm on( too many to count) were amazed and intriged by the swap. i know a couple guys on here wanted to do it after they saw mine in person.
somebody had an idea awhile back over having a 5.4 mustang show, sounds good.

singlesupra · 11-21-2007, 08:54 PM

Well some news on my end.

Going to pick up a stock navi longblock friday. The sound the 99 is making still sounds like its in the trans. Either way will be fine with me as either way Im ending up with a DOHC 5.4 in it.
Scenario 1, trans is infact bad. Ill replace the trans and drive the car like it is while I build a street monster.
Scenario 2, engine is bad. Ill slap on the cobra cams, custom intake and drive it as it is while building the other engine I have.

Both scenarios end up with the 99 back on the road asap, woohoo!

I too bought a set of adapter plates from turboX2. Awsome guy to deal with btw and very knowledgable!

*r3dn3ck* · 11-22-2007, 07:52 AM

w00t. congrats!

I got tune #7 in my email yesterday. Be putting it on this morning and then doing some more WOT runs. I've scheduled a dyno run for next wednesday. Should be some interesting results.

singlesupra · 11-22-2007, 09:33 PM

Who are you getting the mail order tune from? Working 7 days a week and living in the sticks its kinda hard for me to get to a dyno. I can verify the a/f with my wb

*r3dn3ck* · 11-23-2007, 07:52 AM

I'm working with Amazon Racing on my tuning. I've done the bulk of it but for 125 bucks they've got the extra expertise and they're down to work with guys like me (or anyone) to get the tune right. I'm still doing most of it but I needed a little help to get some of the more advanced stuff worked out.

One of the tuners in my area farms out the REALLY complicated jobs to Amazon and then does the fine tuning on the dyno.

If you need a tune and you have the SCT software I can give you a file to load values from that should get you running. If nothing else, the first Amazon tune I got was perfectly streetable. It wasn't perfect yet but I did easily drive it.

2Eighty1 · 11-23-2007, 09:39 AM

I'm allmost ready to dive back into this project guys... reading your stories has helped keep my interest up so keep those stories and pics flowing.

I signed the deal on my new casa wednesday and we are moving next weekend - after that its back to the car fund

*r3dn3ck* · 11-23-2007, 09:48 AM

sick.

Hey guys, speaking of which I have a bunch of spare parts that I need to sell.

2v 5.4L front cover, belt tensioner, oil pumps, pick-up tubes, dipstick tubes, chains & gears, 1 ported (stage 1) head, windage tray and other stuff. I'll send you a box full of goodies for 300 bucks. Also, I'm taking dibbs on my HPS intake and reichard plates.

singlesupra · 11-23-2007, 06:17 PM

picked up the navi longblock today(minus intake), thats a BIG bastard. Can I pull the navi 8 rib crank pulley off and run a SOHC balancer and all my mustang acc's?

cdjnight · 11-23-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

picked up the navi longblock today(minus intake), thats a BIG bastard. Can I pull the navi 8 rib crank pulley off and run a SOHC balancer and all my mustang acc's?

It will fit on there but you need to have bottom end balanced for the lighter crank dampener. Any time you change the rotating weight on a crank it needs to be rebalanced.

singlesupra · 11-24-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

It will fit on there but you need to have bottom end balanced for the lighter crank dampener. Any time you change the rotating weight on a crank it needs to be rebalanced.

i wa under the impression that all modulars were zero balaced? If thats the case, as long as the balancer will physicly fit should be a direct swap I would think

*r3dn3ck* · 11-24-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

picked up the navi longblock today(minus intake), thats a BIG bastard. Can I pull the navi 8 rib crank pulley off and run a SOHC balancer and all my mustang acc's?

I'm running all the 8 rib pulleys except for the alternator, I'm running a 6 rib belt for now. It works with any combo as long as your belt isn't too wide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

It will fit on there but you need to have bottom end balanced for the lighter crank dampener. Any time you change the rotating weight on a crank it needs to be rebalanced.

See below. The damper is not a balancer like on some other cars. It's just there to dampen, not to balance. If you use an unbalanced damper like a plain ol' pulley without all the extra weight and rubber (these exist but are hard to find) you can cause severe engine damage from what I've been told.

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

i wa under the impression that all modulars were zero balaced? If thats the case, as long as the balancer will physicly fit should be a direct swap I would think

There you go. I'm using the stock 8rib crank pulley, all the 8rib tensioners and a 6 rib alternator pulley (stock hehe). My shizzle works great.

cdjnight · 11-24-2007, 09:58 AM

If you talk to any balance shop they will tell you that the total weight of the balancer is taken into account when doing any type of engine balance job, IE...on a modular motor they will want the dampener, oil pump gear, timing gears, gear for magnetic pickup, flywheel, and flywheel bolts. In order to properly balance any motor they need any part that spins with the crank. You are correct about the internal balance but changing the total weight on the front of the crank can cause premature wear and or failure of the bearings. (5.4L and 4.6L dampeners have a different total weight)

Read this http://www.centuryperformance.com/balancing.asp it will tell you that you need these parts to spin while balancing a motor. Also yes you can balance without the correct dampener but you are gambling with the lively-hood of your bottom end

cdjnight · 11-24-2007, 10:36 AM

All automotive engines can benefit by being balanced when they are rebuilt. If you have performed any of the following:

Replaced the Pistons
Ground the Crankshaft
Replaced the Crankshaft
Resized the Connecting Rods
Replaced the Connecting Rods
Replaced the Flywheel
Replaced the Damper
Replaced the Flexplate

your engine will need to be balanced to attain the longest life and performance of your rebuilt engine.

http://www.perpetualbalance.com/balance/main.html

singlesupra · 11-24-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

All automotive engines can benefit by being balanced when they are rebuilt. If you have performed any of the following:

Replaced the Pistons
Ground the Crankshaft
Replaced the Crankshaft
Resized the Connecting Rods
Replaced the Connecting Rods
Replaced the Flywheel
Replaced the Damper
Replaced the Flexplate

your engine will need to be balanced to attain the longest life and performance of your rebuilt engine.

http://www.perpetualbalance.com/balance/main.html

WHile I see what they are saying AND agree about the benifits, do you honestly think its worth it to tear the engine apart when you have a flywheel replaced? The material removed after having a flywheel turned I would guess would be greater than running the 4.6 dampner. Or might just convert all to 8 rib or may do like redn3ck done and use half and half.

97mustang4.62V · 11-24-2007, 07:05 PM

what are some good cam choices? or grinds? how would 230/236 500" 114lsa cams do in a stock 5.4 with bolt ons

gtvert · 11-24-2007, 09:37 PM

On the kar kraft website they have 2 different 5.4 shortblocks for sale. One is for a lightning and the other a 5.4 4 valve. Would the 5.4 4 valve shortblock be a better starting point for a n/a two valve build with the flat top pistons? The 4 valve shortblock is also $400 cheaper, money that could be spent towards better rods.

*r3dn3ck* · 11-25-2007, 07:07 AM

the 4v is cheaper because it comes with cast pistons not forged. The lightning motor comes with forged pistons. With that shortblock and a set of 320 dollar TMD h-beams and a balance job away from a rock solid little bullet of a motor.

The 4v block will net out 10.8:1 - 11.1:1 compression (I'm at 10.5:1). The L block will net out closer to 8.5:1 which will cost some NA power (not much) but makes for a great boost motor.

97mustang4.62v... Best cam depends on a lot of things. I'll BRB with the results of simulating your spec and an optimized timing for best HP and TQ. Realize that these are theoretical until someone tries them.

K... cam results: From virtual dyno the 230/236 is an ok cam with decent potential for as low as it lifts. A lot depends on the ramp rate. I was able to play with it a bit and got better results at the same lift with 226/240 on a 112.5 LSA. With a regular street grade ramp speed you'll see higher hp and tq across the board and a bit more power under the curve and that's on .500 lift. FWIW, my comp 270's show better power than either cam but lift .550.

gtvert · 11-25-2007, 07:26 AM

r3d

would 10.8:1 or 11.1:1 be too much for a street motor. Being n/a with no nitrous I would not be too worried about the cast pistons, only the rods. I could be wrong though as this is going to be my first project like this if I go ahead with it.

*r3dn3ck* · 11-25-2007, 08:00 AM

i run 10.5 and that's perfectly fine for street. 11:1 is about my reasonable limit for a car that will see 91/93 octane gas. Nitrous is extra good on high comp motors. I see little reason not to do it. If you have the heads ported and remove the emissions mask/swirl dam then you'll be safely just below 11:1 with flat tops. I'd do it.

If you can do it, I really recommend the H-beams. Cheap insurance against a windowed block.

97mustang4.62V · 11-25-2007, 10:20 AM

r3dn3ck

what are some good cam choices? or grinds? how would 230/236 500" 114lsa cams do in a stock 5.4 with bolt ons

*r3dn3ck* · 11-25-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97mustang4.62V

r3dn3ck

what are some good cam choices? or grinds? how would 230/236 500" 114lsa cams do in a stock 5.4 with bolt ons

You should expect to leave a solid 20-30hp on the table from unported heads. The cams will help but only so much. Without head porting you'll probably have trouble seeing much more than about 300rwhp.

dunno... the simulator says that'll lose power on ported heads. I'd probably stick with a comp 270 or vt stage 2 or something around there.

My latest optimized theoretical grind is:
234/238 @ .505/.520 on 108.5. In the simulator it drops a little power from 2000-2500 but goes hog wild after that with a big fat tq curve and nicely shaped hp curve. It's got a lot of overlap (16deg) and plenty of duration. These are all based on a pretty radical ramp rate. Call up comp and ask them for a XE270 with a little less lift and a little more overlap.

cdjnight · 11-25-2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

While I see what they are saying AND agree about the benefits, do you honestly think its worth it to tear the engine apart when you have a flywheel replaced? The material removed after having a flywheel turned I would guess would be greater than running the 4.6 dampener. Or might just convert all to 8 rib or may do like redn3ck done and use half and half.

The difference between a 5.4 and 4.6 dampener can be POUNDS, resurfacing a flywheel is ounces or less. And from an engineering standpoint there is nothing else on the front of the crankshaft to absorb vibrations and harmonic imbalances like the transmission does on the rear. I would either stick with the 5.4 dampener or have it rebalanced.

cdjnight · 11-25-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r3dn3ck

i run 10.5 and that's perfectly fine for street. 11:1 is about my reasonable limit for a car that will see 91/93 octane gas. Nitrous is extra good on high comp motors. I see little reason not to do it. If you have the heads ported and remove the emissions mask/swirl dam then you'll be safely just below 11:1 with flat tops. I'd do it.

If you can do it, I really recommend the H-beams. Cheap insurance against a windowed block.

Be careful when ordering flattops, some manufacturers are listing 5.4 piston as the same as 4.6, IE, if you called Probe and ordered a flattop for a 5.4 you would end up with like 14.5 to 1 compression. A 4.6 piston in a 5.4 places the piston like .120" in the hole. A Probe 5.4 piston brings it up to nearly zero deck height. Stock4.6 and 5.4 have 1.220" compression height and which puts a 4.6 near the top and a 5.4 down that .120" Some aftermarket piston makers list the 5.4 as a 1.314 compression height. This is truly what you want for the best performance bringing that piston near the deck surface will give you far better quench verses a stock style which is over .100" in the hole. If you use a 1.314 piston you have to use a dished piston to bring compression back down to a street car range, also the larger compression height gets the ring pack away from the pin and usually spreads them out for a more stable piston in the bore.

singlesupra · 11-25-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

The difference between a 5.4 and 4.6 dampener can be POUNDS, resurfacing a flywheel is ounces or less. And from an engineering standpoint there is nothing else on the front of the crankshaft to absorb vibrations and harmonic imbalances like the transmission does on the rear. I would either stick with the 5.4 dampener or have it rebalanced.

SO you have weighed both? Or pure assumption?

cdjnight · 11-25-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

SO you have weighed both? Or pure assumption?

92-98 GT 5.8 lbs
93-01 Mark 8 and Cobra 6.5 lbs
99-03 GT 8.95 lbs
03 Marauder and Mach 1 automatics 9.90 lbs

Two balancer where made for the 8 rib 5.4L engines

5.7 lbs part # ending in -BA
7.2 lbs part # ending in -CA 97 to present

No I wasn't assuming

singlesupra · 11-25-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

92-98 GT 5.8 lbs
93-01 Mark 8 and Cobra 6.5 lbs
99-03 GT 8.95 lbs
03 Marauder and Mach 1 automatics 9.90 lbs

Two balancer where made for the 8 rib 5.4L engines

5.7 lbs part # ending in -BA
7.2 lbs part # ending in -CA 97 to present

No I wasn't assuming

I still dont see why the DAMPNER(as its not a balancer) makes a bit of diff since the engine is neutral balanced.

cdjnight · 11-25-2007, 07:20 PM

The main reason comes down to its ability to reduce harmonic vibrations and the final step in any good balance job is to spin the crank assembly to 500 rpm with everything installed. How it effects that final spin balance I don't know, but I do know that using the incorrect one or one that is too light has attributed to oil pump gear failures premature wear on the bearings and if you ask any balance shop they will recommend supplying it with the rest of your parts for the balance job to be performed properly.

cdjnight · 11-25-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singlesupra

I still dont see why the DAMPNER(as its not a balancer)

Also, R3Dn3ck may be confused about these definitions too, as he seems to like to correct my grammar as well.

The correct term is Harmonic Balancer, because that's what its job is, to balance harmonic vibrations in the crankshaft. As for correcting the grammar, a DAMPENER(a noun spelled correctly) is something that moistens something or makes it wet. On the other hand a Harmonic Balancer can dampen vibrations.

I have used the word "dampener" before to but I'm not here to correct any one's grammar just to help in the 5.4 swaps.

Oh what the heck, try it and let us all know here how long everything stayed together. I'm sure everyone here will appreciate your pioneering contributions to the forum.

singlesupra · 11-25-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdjnight

Also R3Dn3ck may be confused about these definitions too ass he seems to like to correct grammar too

The correct term is Harmonic Balancer, because that's what its job is, to balance harmonic vibrations in the crankshaft. As for correcting the grammar, a DAMPENER(a noun spelled correctly) is something that moistens something or makes it wet. On the other hand a Harmonic Balancer can dampen vibrations.

I have used the word "dampener" before to but I'm not here to correct any one's grammar just to help in the 5.4 swaps.

Oh what the heck, try it and let us all know here how long everything stayed together. I'm sure everyone here will appreciate your pioneering contributions to the forum.

Look bud, I am not going to argue with someone like you. Your a walking google search and nothing more. Apparently you dont know jack since you ran the same ET as I have in a bolton 4.6, and unless this is supraforums the miles per hour dont mean jack since you still only trapped 90mph in a turbo mustang. Ive accidently done more than you will ever accomplish.
Since were on the grammer kick it would appear, I highlighted the mistake you made, kinda odd as it seems the one word you misspell appears to define you