Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
06-10-2007, 04:08 AM
#61
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
This is out of a turbo motor that used to dyno at 400rwhp. Just pictues out of some guys post about his motor that almost installed a window in the block but the rods only bent instead of snapping. I would suppose this sort of mild failure was due to turbos having a softer hit compared to a positive displacement supercharger. I've never seen a supercharged motorbend rods, they generally snap them like twigs and shove them out the side of the block.
Cheers!
06-10-2007, 04:13 AM
#62
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
The bottom end of the S197GT in NA form should be good to 8,000RPM for racing purposes. On the street 7,000RPM should be no problem as the real problem is valve control and lack of cam timing to support high RPM power. Install a set of Comp Cams 127300 sticks with beehives and Ti retainers and the power will be there and the valves should be good to 7,000+RPM per Comp tech support.
Cheers!
06-10-2007, 08:56 PM
#63
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nashville Tn
Posts: 1,644
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
The bottom end of the S197GT in NA form should be good to 8,000RPM for racing purposes. On the street 7,000RPM should be no problem as the real problem is valve control and lack of cam timing to support high RPM power. Install a set of Comp Cams 127300 sticks with beehives and Ti retainers and the power will be there and the valves should be good to 7,000+RPM per Comp tech support.
Cheers!
ORIGINAL: Buschris
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
Under what conditions did that rod bend, if you know? Had a friend that bent rods using too much nitrous, and some others
I have seen that revved past 6 grand (which is a no no in my book)
The bottom end of the S197GT in NA form should be good to 8,000RPM for racing purposes. On the street 7,000RPM should be no problem as the real problem is valve control and lack of cam timing to support high RPM power. Install a set of Comp Cams 127300 sticks with beehives and Ti retainers and the power will be there and the valves should be good to 7,000+RPM per Comp tech support.
Cheers!
06-11-2007, 12:21 AM
#64
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 43
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
06-11-2007, 01:34 AM
#65
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: Buschris
yet...
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
Agreed from experience. Mine has been pullled to 7k+ on the dyno many times and regularly to 6800 on the track. I have yet to have an issue.
And it's a wonder that experts such as people at Kenne Bell say that overrevving and detonation is what kills the 4.6L.
I wonder why they make those ridiculous claims? They must be uninformed. If 400rwhp bent a rod, I'm sure some event
happened that caused it. I would guess one of the two above. I know of someone that runs 17lbs of boost and a meth
injection and runs in the 10's and his Mustang is holding up just fine with an auto! I'll use the words of many tuners who
say "it's all in the tune". Yell at them for their incompetence, not me.
All things being equal and assumming the fuel delivery system is up to the task once you get the MAF transfer function tablescorrect with a particular intake system and blowerthe output shouldpretty much look the same on the dyno. There is no "magic" involved in tuning an engine, if it appears to be magic to you you should not be performing engine tuning. Detonation happens no matter who provided the boost undera given set of conditions. A good tuner just has to avoid detonation by not running the A/F too lean and not pushing the ignition timing to far, you cannot push detonation down by usingmore fuel either. As far as I knowanyblower will destroy the stock bottom endgiven enough full effort passes at the drag strip no matter whatthe tune is if the motor is pushing over 450rwhp. It is NOT the tune that makes the rods fail it is the rods themselves that are the problem.
AFAIK nobody with a streetable pump gas 3-valve motor who has built a 4.6l with agoodfully forged rotating assembly has blown their engine due to a rod failure. AFAIK nobody with a stock bottom end has blown their engine due to a piston or crank failure thatdid not showsigns of detonation. If anybody has evidence of this I'd love to see it and I can assure you that KB would have it on their website supporting their paranoid statements to potential buyers.
Cheers
06-11-2007, 02:13 AM
#66
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 43
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
06-12-2007, 03:59 AM
#67
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: Buschris
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
Lido may nothave perfect knowledge in all things boosted. Intake charge temp is thebiggest single factor in detonation after a fuel's resistance to pre-combustion and detonation and the combustionchamber's resistance to detonation. Intake charge temp rise isvery dependent on theefficiency rangeyou are operating whatever the supercharging device at.
The stock rods are not safe at 500bhpand no way safe at 500rwhp. This has been shown repeatedly andalmost every tuner has hada 4.6l's sintered rods fail atlower power levels. Engine speed on an N/A motor is not a problem for the bottom end and even if you can get the valves under control which is easy to do now with the Comp beehives and Ti retainers I have not heard anybody say the valvetrain is good much past 7,000RPM due to the follower's mass and the hydroliclifters collapsing. Like I said, even the stock bottom end of the 3-valve motoris good for up to 8,000RPM on a 4.6l N/A/ motor. Most folks that have extensive N/A racing4-valve 4.6l Cobramotors will tell you this and the S197GT 3-valve motors use the same bottom end components as the old N/A Cobras did.
Back in the olden days we used torunendurancePorsche 911 Turbos flat outin 6 and 12 hour races and you know what?Our "normal"setting A/F ratiowas 13.2:1 and fully rich was only 12.5:1and these engines were bulletproof flat out for the 12 hour races. Many people are afraid of running a sharp tune on their engines but this is because they are not fully confident in their tune and understanding of the Ford ECU and what the program will do and can't trust that the fuel coming out the cheapest gas station in townthatdriver found at 2A.M. will actually be 93 octane fuel. Of course the 911 Turbo motors we ranwere operating within a very narrow range of conditions and wehad some rather exotic high octaneimported race fuel which wasa very toxic cocktail of petroleum distilates that you would need a hazmat permit for these days just to bring into the country.
I like turbos but have not seen a good street turbo installation on the S197GT yet. IMO if you are after power there is nothing that can touch a turbo but on the street? Give me a posative displacement screw airpump anyday. I used to drive a 911 Turbo and it was not a great street car due to the incredible hit the turbos produced whrn they came in. This was a long time ago and to be honest Porsche 911 Turbos wereIMO verycrude back in the late 70's but no other factoryeven had turbos on the streetback then. That 930 was fast but too scary to drive quickly on the street due to the lag and massive hit you got when the boostcame in.
I don't really know whata really steetable power level forthe S197GT 3-valveengines. But I do know that there are some built 750rwhp Vortec S197GT's with automaticsout there that are scary fast and they drive like factory. But IDK, 750rwhp is maybe a bit much IMO. I'll be happy to hit 350-360rwhp N/A.
Cheers!
06-12-2007, 04:42 AM
#68
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,527
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: F1Fan
Lido may not have perfect knowledge in all things boosted. Intake charge temp is the biggest single factor in detonation after a fuel's resistance to pre-combustion and detonation and the combustion chamber's resistance to detonation. Intake charge temp rise is very dependent on the efficiency range you are operating whatever the supercharging device at.
The stock rods are not safe at 500bhp and no way safe at 500rwhp. This has been shown repeatedly and almost every tuner has had a 4.6l's sintered rods fail at lower power levels. Engine speed on an N/A motor is not a problem for the bottom end and even if you can get the valves under control which is easy to do now with the Comp beehives and Ti retainers I have not heard anybody say the valvetrain is good much past 7,000RPM due to the follower's mass and the hydrolic lifters collapsing. Like I said, even the stock bottom end of the 3-valve motor is good for up to 8,000RPM on a 4.6l N/A/ motor. Most folks that have extensive N/A racing 4-valve 4.6l Cobra motors will tell you this and the S197GT 3-valve motors use the same bottom end components as the old N/A Cobras did.
Back in the olden days we used to run endurance Porsche 911 Turbos flat out in 6 and 12 hour races and you know what? Our "normal" setting A/F ratio was 13.2:1 and fully rich was only 12.5:1 and these engines were bulletproof flat out for the 12 hour races. Many people are afraid of running a sharp tune on their engines but this is because they are not fully confident in their tune and understanding of the Ford ECU and what the program will do and can't trust that the fuel coming out the cheapest gas station in town that driver found at 2A.M. will actually be 93 octane fuel. Of course the 911 Turbo motors we ran were operating within a very narrow range of conditions and we had some rather exotic high octane imported race fuel which was a very toxic cocktail of petroleum distilates that you would need a hazmat permit for these days just to bring into the country.
I like turbos but have not seen a good street turbo installation on the S197GT yet. IMO if you are after power there is nothing that can touch a turbo but on the street? Give me a posative displacement screw airpump anyday. I used to drive a 911 Turbo and it was not a great street car due to the incredible hit the turbos produced whrn they came in. This was a long time ago and to be honest Porsche 911 Turbos were IMO very crude back in the late 70's but no other factory even had turbos on the street back then. That 930 was fast but too scary to drive quickly on the street due to the lag and massive hit you got when the boost came in.
I don't really know what a really steetable power level for the S197GT 3-valve engines. But I do know that there are some built 750rwhp Vortec S197GT's with automatics out there that are scary fast and they drive like factory. But IDK, 750rwhp is maybe a bit much IMO. I'll be happy to hit 350-360rwhp N/A.
Cheers!
ORIGINAL: Buschris
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
I guess Lidio over at alternativeauto would love to hear that. He has the same mindset on his tunes. Another thing
that kills engines is intake charge temp. I see some guys going with water/methanol injection to lower intake
temps and raise octane.
I hear you on the components, I never said they'd take abuse but they should hold up to 500hp with good tunes.
Yes, more fuel does not prevent detonation, but higher octane will. I would gander that most people run 91-93
octane with FI. That's asking for trouble as well as revs.
I was looking at some turbo's tonight and pondering saving up for one. You think 6 psi on 98-100 octane and a
conservative tune would kill a 4.6? I am not against buying a block and starting from scratch. If I do go that
route, why stop at 450hp? I'd go all the way to 650 and beyond, as long as I can drive it everyday. What is the
max streetable hp for these cars? I chose turbo because of more hp, better mileage and your foot controls boost.
Lido may not have perfect knowledge in all things boosted. Intake charge temp is the biggest single factor in detonation after a fuel's resistance to pre-combustion and detonation and the combustion chamber's resistance to detonation. Intake charge temp rise is very dependent on the efficiency range you are operating whatever the supercharging device at.
The stock rods are not safe at 500bhp and no way safe at 500rwhp. This has been shown repeatedly and almost every tuner has had a 4.6l's sintered rods fail at lower power levels. Engine speed on an N/A motor is not a problem for the bottom end and even if you can get the valves under control which is easy to do now with the Comp beehives and Ti retainers I have not heard anybody say the valvetrain is good much past 7,000RPM due to the follower's mass and the hydrolic lifters collapsing. Like I said, even the stock bottom end of the 3-valve motor is good for up to 8,000RPM on a 4.6l N/A/ motor. Most folks that have extensive N/A racing 4-valve 4.6l Cobra motors will tell you this and the S197GT 3-valve motors use the same bottom end components as the old N/A Cobras did.
Back in the olden days we used to run endurance Porsche 911 Turbos flat out in 6 and 12 hour races and you know what? Our "normal" setting A/F ratio was 13.2:1 and fully rich was only 12.5:1 and these engines were bulletproof flat out for the 12 hour races. Many people are afraid of running a sharp tune on their engines but this is because they are not fully confident in their tune and understanding of the Ford ECU and what the program will do and can't trust that the fuel coming out the cheapest gas station in town that driver found at 2A.M. will actually be 93 octane fuel. Of course the 911 Turbo motors we ran were operating within a very narrow range of conditions and we had some rather exotic high octane imported race fuel which was a very toxic cocktail of petroleum distilates that you would need a hazmat permit for these days just to bring into the country.
I like turbos but have not seen a good street turbo installation on the S197GT yet. IMO if you are after power there is nothing that can touch a turbo but on the street? Give me a posative displacement screw airpump anyday. I used to drive a 911 Turbo and it was not a great street car due to the incredible hit the turbos produced whrn they came in. This was a long time ago and to be honest Porsche 911 Turbos were IMO very crude back in the late 70's but no other factory even had turbos on the street back then. That 930 was fast but too scary to drive quickly on the street due to the lag and massive hit you got when the boost came in.
I don't really know what a really steetable power level for the S197GT 3-valve engines. But I do know that there are some built 750rwhp Vortec S197GT's with automatics out there that are scary fast and they drive like factory. But IDK, 750rwhp is maybe a bit much IMO. I'll be happy to hit 350-360rwhp N/A.
Cheers!
Most know where I stand on turbos for street use. I am definitely not the most knowledgable guy, but I'm rpetty sure I've done more turbo set-ups and testing than anyone else out there on the S197 and I say stoutly - turbo = great for track and BAD for street.
I've said it before, replace your passenger seat with a giant waterbox and maybe we're talking different but with the air cooled options out there now, I would not use any of the current turbo kits on a DD.
06-12-2007, 10:25 AM
#69
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 43
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
that certainly gives me a couple of things to think about. so you guys think a twin screw would be best for all around street use. now, would you say a whipple would be a good choice? and just exactly
how efficient are these intercoolers on twin screws compared to an air-to-air intercooler? the only s/c i have had was on my 89 supercoupe, matter of fact i still have that and was considering using it on my
recently traded V6 as there was a guy making manifolds and intake tubes on ebay. that would have been an easy 50-60hp. for $1500. i have friend at work with a new keene bell 2.6 on his and it seems
very powerful and smooth. i didn't really want to do anything to the engine because of my 75k warranty, that and the fact this is my daily driver. definately gives me time to think about what would be best to do
and the lesson in a/f and stuff you gave really was something to consider. btw, what exactly is a perfect a/f ratio? isn't it something like 13.5:1?
how efficient are these intercoolers on twin screws compared to an air-to-air intercooler? the only s/c i have had was on my 89 supercoupe, matter of fact i still have that and was considering using it on my
recently traded V6 as there was a guy making manifolds and intake tubes on ebay. that would have been an easy 50-60hp. for $1500. i have friend at work with a new keene bell 2.6 on his and it seems
very powerful and smooth. i didn't really want to do anything to the engine because of my 75k warranty, that and the fact this is my daily driver. definately gives me time to think about what would be best to do
and the lesson in a/f and stuff you gave really was something to consider. btw, what exactly is a perfect a/f ratio? isn't it something like 13.5:1?
06-12-2007, 02:44 PM
#70
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,471
RE: Comp Cams Stage 3 Vrs. Crane Cams Stage 3
ORIGINAL: fordfanboy
Some solid information but I just want to add that one of the main limiting factors to cams also is the VCT. Doing a VCT delete allows you to spin the stockers (and aftermarket) cams much farther. Most of the drivetrain issues on the stockers aren't really in the camshafts - it's been in lifters failing and then subsequent damage to the camshafts resulting form the lifter failure.
Most know where I stand on turbos for street use. I am definitely not the most knowledgable guy, but I'm rpetty sure I've done more turbo set-ups and testing than anyone else out there on the S197 and I say stoutly - turbo = great for track and BAD for street.
I've said it before, replace your passenger seat with a giant waterbox and maybe we're talking different but with the air cooled options out there now, I would not use any of the current turbo kits on a DD.
Some solid information but I just want to add that one of the main limiting factors to cams also is the VCT. Doing a VCT delete allows you to spin the stockers (and aftermarket) cams much farther. Most of the drivetrain issues on the stockers aren't really in the camshafts - it's been in lifters failing and then subsequent damage to the camshafts resulting form the lifter failure.
Most know where I stand on turbos for street use. I am definitely not the most knowledgable guy, but I'm rpetty sure I've done more turbo set-ups and testing than anyone else out there on the S197 and I say stoutly - turbo = great for track and BAD for street.
I've said it before, replace your passenger seat with a giant waterbox and maybe we're talking different but with the air cooled options out there now, I would not use any of the current turbo kits on a DD.
What part of the VVT system isa problem? The only part of the VVT system I've seen as a problem is not mechanical but the general lack of any understanding of how the VVT system works and howto take full advanatage ofVVTto improve power and torque acrossa particular cam's effecitve engine speed range. IMO the only reason tunerslock out VVT is due toa severe lackunderstanding of not only how butwhen to alter the timing of valveevents for a given cam profile. I've never seen or heard of a diffinitive mechanicalproblem pinpointed in the VVT system aside from a lack of understanding aboutthe pressure requirements of the VVT's cam phasing mechanisim when used with aftermarket high volume/high pressure oil pumps. I suppose that insome extremely high-boost applications the stock VVT cam positioning mechanisim may not be robust enough to deal with the additional load placed on thecamsbut foranyN/A applications they should be more than adequate.
All of the valvetrain issues I've seen and heard of are largely centered aroundthe lifters collapsing at high RPM and loss of valve control at high RPM due to the weight of the cam followers. Why Ford chose to use the old rollerfinger followersis a mystery to me. The majority oftheengine makers in the worldproducing high-performance, multi-valve high-RPM heads are using lifters withdirect actingbucketswith either mechanical orhydralicmeans to provide valve clearance right on the valve stems.That's how you build reliable high-RPM, with low recipricating mass allowingexcellent valve control and low maintainence. Of course this makes for a slightly taller head assembly but the 4.6l modulars already cut a pretty wide profile due to the excellent intake andexhaust port designs.
As I posted previosuly turbos are great for maximum effort road racing and dragstrip applications but a belt drive high volume screw supercharger IMO is the way to go on the street where the power is only used for brief spurts and the IAT rise is not really an issue due to the sheer volume of these pumps and small displacement ofthe S197 engine.
Cheers!