View Poll Results: What are your 5.4L swap plans?
Voters: 220. You may not vote on this poll
Anyone intrested in 5.4L swaps, in here. Need you to opine.
#4412
07-02-2008, 08:38 AM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Magrathea/California
Posts: 9,865
i just put in a bid on a lightning blower setup. We'll see, probably won't get it. I'm horribly cheap.
There's an allen blower kit for sale near me that I'm also thinking of getting... purpose built for 5.4L 2v 5psi would take me over 425rwhp at my compression.
There's an allen blower kit for sale near me that I'm also thinking of getting... purpose built for 5.4L 2v 5psi would take me over 425rwhp at my compression.
#4413
07-02-2008, 08:45 AM
I put em in just how he had em listed. I'll see if I have time later to post up pics of the simulations so you guys can get a better idea of how random (seemingly) the results of different cam profiles behave. I had to guess at a couple very important factors on the cam timing but that still limits the error to advance/retard on the cam of a few degrees.
Realize that these are in fact simulations but so far when I put in the real valid data the results have been pretty darned accurate.
Nightwing: You're definitely going to need a tubular k-member (for any turbo kit) but I don't think you should have too much trouble with fitting those headers (you'll probably lose the AC and have to use a oil filter relocation kit (I can build you a kit if you like... BADASS requires battery relocated to the trunk)).
1 word of caution: I'd use stock cast manifolds swapped sides and turned around rather than the tubular headers. You will be tending toward pretty high EGT's under boost and the underhood temps are already pretty high especially with a turbo up there which is hard on welds. I've seen and read and heard about tubular headers breaking at the welds under such conditions which is bad and a PITA to have to fix. Cast manifolds will probably survive much better on a street car. If you really want them then I'd also make sure to fab in a support structure so the weight of the turbo and piping doesn't lead to welds cracking (edit: and get the very best quality header you can)
EDIT: I just re-read the bottom of that ad... um no you don't want those. They require a motor plate which basically ain't typically street car material. That's a true race part. Leave it on the track.
Realize that these are in fact simulations but so far when I put in the real valid data the results have been pretty darned accurate.
Nightwing: You're definitely going to need a tubular k-member (for any turbo kit) but I don't think you should have too much trouble with fitting those headers (you'll probably lose the AC and have to use a oil filter relocation kit (I can build you a kit if you like... BADASS requires battery relocated to the trunk)).
1 word of caution: I'd use stock cast manifolds swapped sides and turned around rather than the tubular headers. You will be tending toward pretty high EGT's under boost and the underhood temps are already pretty high especially with a turbo up there which is hard on welds. I've seen and read and heard about tubular headers breaking at the welds under such conditions which is bad and a PITA to have to fix. Cast manifolds will probably survive much better on a street car. If you really want them then I'd also make sure to fab in a support structure so the weight of the turbo and piping doesn't lead to welds cracking (edit: and get the very best quality header you can)
EDIT: I just re-read the bottom of that ad... um no you don't want those. They require a motor plate which basically ain't typically street car material. That's a true race part. Leave it on the track.
the kit will be close to this
Already have MM k-member... need to start on my heads soon and get the HPS intake when it comes out then i should be ready to assemble and set down in the car ..
#4416
07-02-2008, 11:56 AM
Yes, Hitech uses MORE lift and duration on the intake due to the fact that the intake iks the weaker of the intake/exhaust. They hAVE PROVED THAT. The SVO heads had 200+cfm flow out of the box but Ford barely touched the exhaust. Hitech has proven 45whp with the ONLY mod besides thew cams being LT's. In fact the cars got 300+WHP for the most part, sticks anyways, one auto. That kis with stock heads/intake also.
Man I have a laptop now and am really messede up learning. I sent a PM to Nighthawk and got a response but may have lost it. Still for sale? RED not sure why you say to shim the lash adjusters as that just adjusts the valvetrain and does not ijncrease lift does it? Mine are shimmed .050" due to the base circle, not for more lift as I understand it. That is what SHM said anyways, one former worker there.
Man I hate computers! Dummy that I am.
Man I have a laptop now and am really messede up learning. I sent a PM to Nighthawk and got a response but may have lost it. Still for sale? RED not sure why you say to shim the lash adjusters as that just adjusts the valvetrain and does not ijncrease lift does it? Mine are shimmed .050" due to the base circle, not for more lift as I understand it. That is what SHM said anyways, one former worker there.
Man I hate computers! Dummy that I am.
#4417
07-02-2008, 03:45 PM
I forget If I posted this or not but have you guys looked at Torktech for superchargers?
http://www.torktech.com/
their kit is an Eaton M112 and it is useable with the 5.4 intake spacers. it was made to fit under the hood of a Mustang with the Cobra R hood. it's a $4300 kit I think. there are a few guys on the Crown Vic boards using this kit to build up the Vic's 4.6
http://www.torktech.com/
their kit is an Eaton M112 and it is useable with the 5.4 intake spacers. it was made to fit under the hood of a Mustang with the Cobra R hood. it's a $4300 kit I think. there are a few guys on the Crown Vic boards using this kit to build up the Vic's 4.6
#4418
07-02-2008, 07:52 PM
comparing 4.6 to 5.4 with these parts is a waste of all of our time. You're only going to confuse the issue. 5.4's respond differently to the same parts.
In this case lift is irrelevant due to head flow and duration. Either of the hitech cams won't make much of a difference. Use the cams you have and if you want more lift, shim em'.
In this case lift is irrelevant due to head flow and duration. Either of the hitech cams won't make much of a difference. Use the cams you have and if you want more lift, shim em'.
Are you talking about the article where hitech did testing with the 5.4 and used the 4.6 as a base comparison? From what I saw it was all good for the 5.4. As I stated it made 95lbs./ft. more at 2500rpm and 30whp more with nothing but a 4.6 PI in take and a tune. That is very impressive. I am confused if when you mentioned their 2 cams if you meant the Hitech cams would not work well in the 5.4? Possible, not sure if they tried the cams.
You mention a formula that shows what power a cam would make with a particular motor as a base, what is the formula?
OH, I tried to contact the guy with the 5.4 but he has not gotten back. Another contacted me about one, apparently torn down, nighthawk perhaps, know him?
The shims the SHM's have are to correct nthe valvetrain geometry due tot he fsact the cams were ground with the base circle too small so SHM sent .050" shims for the lifters(valve adjusters?) and I have them in but they do not change the lift, need new cams for that, I asked!
Mark
#4422
07-03-2008, 10:23 AM
comparing 4.6 to 5.4 with these parts is a waste of all of our time. You're only going to confuse the issue. 5.4's respond differently to the same parts.
In this case lift is irrelevant due to head flow and duration. Either of the hitech cams won't make much of a difference. Use the cams you have and if you want more lift, shim em'.
In this case lift is irrelevant due to head flow and duration. Either of the hitech cams won't make much of a difference. Use the cams you have and if you want more lift, shim em'.
Any cams that are optimum for a 4.6 will not be optimum for a 5.4 due to the difference in the intake valve diameter/bore volume ratios...not even close. There are some off-the-shelf cams that will work and the tighter LSA hitechs would be included iwth those that would work. The old VT cams have a very tight LSA and would also work well. Cams with a very tight LSA (109-107) will also work great with the single plane edelbrock intake...my intake of choice for a 5.4 swap. The tight LSA will bring on the torque quick and also prevent the power from dropping off quickly.
Last edited by na svt; 07-03-2008 at 10:31 AM.
#4423
07-03-2008, 11:01 AM
Here's some idea of the effect of cam timing... Notice how different the results are from a 4.6.
Here's a custom profile I banged out that looks perfect for skylark.
What you can see by the pics is:
I'm pretty ****** cool to be burnin my time on dyno sims for y'all.
HiTech Stage 1 has too much lift and not enough duration
My custom profile has better average tq than HiTech stage 2 but costs about 10hp at 5000rpm for that.
SHM's cams lack a little in the lift department but are great street cams for this application (torque monster)
The difference between the SHM's and HiTech 2's and r3dn3ck specials is minimal and really icomes down to where the tq is and how long it lasts. The 270's are a good cam for a off the shelf grind.
Here's a custom profile I banged out that looks perfect for skylark.
What you can see by the pics is:
I'm pretty ****** cool to be burnin my time on dyno sims for y'all.
HiTech Stage 1 has too much lift and not enough duration
My custom profile has better average tq than HiTech stage 2 but costs about 10hp at 5000rpm for that.
SHM's cams lack a little in the lift department but are great street cams for this application (torque monster)
The difference between the SHM's and HiTech 2's and r3dn3ck specials is minimal and really icomes down to where the tq is and how long it lasts. The 270's are a good cam for a off the shelf grind.
The Comp 270s LSA is too wide to make good power in a 5.4.
In a street/strip 5.4 I would go for some cams with 235-240 intake and 230-235 exhaust. A stock intake'd motor would have LCs of 110/112-114 while an edelbrock intake'd motor would be in the 109/109 range...or even tighter.
BTW r3dn3ck, what kinda hp does your motor make?
Last edited by na svt; 07-03-2008 at 11:15 AM.
#4424
07-03-2008, 12:52 PM
Please, real world results always trump those provided by a computer. BTW, how do you input intake manifold type and port flow numbers?
A larger cube motor with the same valve size as a smaller cube motor will always require a tighter LSA and longer duration to acheive optimum efficiency. Also, single plane intakes require even tighter LSAs to get the intake charge moving in the right direction. This has been proven over and over again and can not be debated.
I wish I could tell you how many times these desktop dynos have been way off. The only ones that work are those that take into consideration all the factors that contribute to power production. A prime example is your 109LC graph, when combined with a single plane edelbrock intake peak power will occur much higher than 3500rpm and will not drop off nearly as fast as you show.
Once again, what kinda power is your 5.4 making? Can you show us a graph?
Were you serious about the "shims" to increase lift?
A larger cube motor with the same valve size as a smaller cube motor will always require a tighter LSA and longer duration to acheive optimum efficiency. Also, single plane intakes require even tighter LSAs to get the intake charge moving in the right direction. This has been proven over and over again and can not be debated.
I wish I could tell you how many times these desktop dynos have been way off. The only ones that work are those that take into consideration all the factors that contribute to power production. A prime example is your 109LC graph, when combined with a single plane edelbrock intake peak power will occur much higher than 3500rpm and will not drop off nearly as fast as you show.
Once again, what kinda power is your 5.4 making? Can you show us a graph?
Were you serious about the "shims" to increase lift?
Last edited by na svt; 07-03-2008 at 01:01 PM.
#4425
07-03-2008, 03:39 PM
Red, the 216*/220* are Crower stage 1 for npi's. I have a set of Crower stage 2 npi's, 220*/224* & .532"/.532".
Hitech stage 2's are 234*/230* & .550"/.500" on a 111*LSA-2*, my apologies if I mistyped. New with this thing.
Thanks for the time but what about the 220*/224* with .532" in/out on a 114* LSA? THX!
Hitech stage 2's are 234*/230* & .550"/.500" on a 111*LSA-2*, my apologies if I mistyped. New with this thing.
Thanks for the time but what about the 220*/224* with .532" in/out on a 114* LSA? THX!
#4427
07-07-2008, 05:48 AM
Red, the 216*/220* are Crower stage 1 for npi's. I have a set of Crower stage 2 npi's, 220*/224* & .532"/.532".
Hitech stage 2's are 234*/230* & .550"/.500" on a 111*LSA-2*, my apologies if I mistyped. New with this thing.
Thanks for the time but what about the 220*/224* with .532" in/out on a 114* LSA? THX!
Hitech stage 2's are 234*/230* & .550"/.500" on a 111*LSA-2*, my apologies if I mistyped. New with this thing.
Thanks for the time but what about the 220*/224* with .532" in/out on a 114* LSA? THX!
RED, COULD YOU RUN THE FOLLOWING SPECS ON YOUR DESKTOP DYNO USING A 4.6 INSTEAD OF A 5.4?
FIRST OF ALL THE CAMS I HAVE HERE FROM CROWER ARE .532"/.532" & 220*/224* ON A 114* LSA, COULD YOU RUN THEM FOR A 4.6.
THEN THE HITECH'S ARE .550"/.500" & 234*/230* ON A 111*LSA-2*. LSA IS 111* BUT CAM IS RETARDED 2*. AGAIN FOR A 4.6 PLEASE. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. BY THE WAY HOW DOES ONE GET THIS PROGRAM AND THE COST? THX mark
#4428
07-07-2008, 07:34 AM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Magrathea/California
Posts: 9,865
You can get the software at http://www.proracingsim.com/purchasejac2.htm. Full desktop dyno. Cost is about 100 bucks.
#4429
07-07-2008, 08:12 AM
red,
Its really great all the time you spend running combos for guys, but IMHO you put WAY, WAY too much faith in computer sims, throwing numbers around all the time and making recommendations off of them. Regardless of what your program says if I put cams in my motor they WILL BE Hitech Stage II's. They firmly believe (I've stood up there talking to Brian about it) that the PI head is much stronger on the exhaust than the intake, ported or not, hence the bias towards the intake. This is especially true when you open the exhaust with longtubes. Their cams work extremely well in 4.6s, as mentioned they've hit 300rwhp with just bolt-ons and longtubes. When you swap to a 5.4 the situation becomes quite a bit more intake restricted, so even though they were designed with a 4.6 in mind, I think they will work better on a 5.4 than any other off-the-shelf grind I've seen. When I dynoed my truck up there a couple months ago they were half-kiddingly trying to talk me into dropping a set in while I was there, would have been pretty tempting if I weren't on a fairly strict budget currently. Its still high on my "next" list, but I've got a little oil consumption issue to worry about first.....hopefully just guides or seals....
Its really great all the time you spend running combos for guys, but IMHO you put WAY, WAY too much faith in computer sims, throwing numbers around all the time and making recommendations off of them. Regardless of what your program says if I put cams in my motor they WILL BE Hitech Stage II's. They firmly believe (I've stood up there talking to Brian about it) that the PI head is much stronger on the exhaust than the intake, ported or not, hence the bias towards the intake. This is especially true when you open the exhaust with longtubes. Their cams work extremely well in 4.6s, as mentioned they've hit 300rwhp with just bolt-ons and longtubes. When you swap to a 5.4 the situation becomes quite a bit more intake restricted, so even though they were designed with a 4.6 in mind, I think they will work better on a 5.4 than any other off-the-shelf grind I've seen. When I dynoed my truck up there a couple months ago they were half-kiddingly trying to talk me into dropping a set in while I was there, would have been pretty tempting if I weren't on a fairly strict budget currently. Its still high on my "next" list, but I've got a little oil consumption issue to worry about first.....hopefully just guides or seals....
#4431
07-07-2008, 01:50 PM
I forget If I posted this or not but have you guys looked at Torktech for superchargers?
http://www.torktech.com/
their kit is an Eaton M112 and it is useable with the 5.4 intake spacers. it was made to fit under the hood of a Mustang with the Cobra R hood. it's a $4300 kit I think. there are a few guys on the Crown Vic boards using this kit to build up the Vic's 4.6
http://www.torktech.com/
their kit is an Eaton M112 and it is useable with the 5.4 intake spacers. it was made to fit under the hood of a Mustang with the Cobra R hood. it's a $4300 kit I think. there are a few guys on the Crown Vic boards using this kit to build up the Vic's 4.6
#4432
07-08-2008, 08:11 AM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Magrathea/California
Posts: 9,865
yep... you guys are right. I'm fixing my posts so nobody uses that shitty shitty shitty information. thanks.
#4433
07-08-2008, 09:12 AM
Thats an opinion, and thats all it is.....
#4435
07-08-2008, 10:25 AM
i went the safe route, i got a custom cam from modular power house, i know Tim may not have as much experience with turbo 4.6/5.4 dohc drag cars making 2000+hp like mihovetz and others like him but for the 300-800 rwhp sohc mustangs he easily has more experience than anyone so i took his word for it and i've yet to see anyone match the power and street friendliness of his 2v cams and at 600 bones they're priced right also
#4436
07-08-2008, 11:31 AM
Great deal on an engine donor
http://detroit.craigslist.org/pts/739618228.html
For anyone close to the detroit area, this is a great deal...I just came across this today.
For anyone close to the detroit area, this is a great deal...I just came across this today.
#4438
07-09-2008, 04:51 AM
Well.. my motor swap is on the back burner right now, I hit a deer and trashed the bumper, hood, fender and headlight on the passenger side. Same thing happended last year on the driver's side, I'm considering a ******* brush guard/push bar at this point.
#4439
07-09-2008, 05:33 AM
