Vortech v3 vs Roush M90
11-02-2010, 09:15 PM
#11
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Pole
Posts: 6,716
That set up you have plus an intercooler and re-tune will put you right at where you'd like to be, in terms of hp to the wheels. With driving skill and a good set of tires, you should be hitting some excellent times (low 12s, high 11s). That heat soaked blower is doing you no good, pulley swap or not.. heat kills hp, plain and simple..
11-02-2010, 11:19 PM
#14
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 2,612
The current issue I'm having is my 60" suck 2.1 and my quarter mile here is a 13.5 at 104 I find that real crappy but here in las vegas at a 4100 da I guess its ok considering these cars stock go 14.6.
my tuner says that we should just do the 3.6 pulley for now no intercooler try it out see if its more and if it is then spend all the money for an intercooler and go to a 3.44 pulley.
my tuner says that we should just do the 3.6 pulley for now no intercooler try it out see if its more and if it is then spend all the money for an intercooler and go to a 3.44 pulley.
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/05.shtml
they go 13.5 stock.
As for your setup, I have a feeling most of your performance woes are heat related. Do you monitor your IAT? Anything over like 130 and your gonna start killing your power... its real easy to get over that in a non intercooled setup, or with one in some cases.
Have you seen / considered this kit?
http://www.brenspeed.com/v3houpgrade.html
Its the logical upgrade to a non intercooled kit, proven to make good power.
As others have said, going to a M90 would kill your head room and make less power then what yours can do if set up properly.
11-03-2010, 02:45 AM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nv
Posts: 12
These cars are 14.50s 14.60s here stock
[QUOTE=JDWalton;7272586]had to go double check but found something to confirm what I thought here:
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/05.shtml
they go 13.50
Here in las Vegas Nevada we're at a 4000 density altitude these cars go 14.50 14.60 her stock one full second slower than where the car you got your info from tested at sea level, there's never been a 13.50 stock Gt that year at our track.
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/05.shtml
they go 13.50
Here in las Vegas Nevada we're at a 4000 density altitude these cars go 14.50 14.60 her stock one full second slower than where the car you got your info from tested at sea level, there's never been a 13.50 stock Gt that year at our track.
11-03-2010, 08:54 AM
#18
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Delaware
Posts: 708
11-03-2010, 09:29 AM
#19
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 2,612
had to go double check but found something to confirm what I thought here:
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/05.shtml
they go 13.50
http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/05.shtml
they go 13.50
14.1 running 20" rims and non pro driver, nothing else... That only took literaly 2 minutes to find, I bet I could find better if I looked around.
But ANYWAY, I think you took offense and missed the point I was trying to make, in the rest of my comment you hacked off. Look at the package I linked if you actualy want to go faster, and work on the driver mod too. (Meaning go practice cause you should be faster as you sit, sorry didnt want to come out and say it that way but you forced my hand.)
Last edited by JDWalton; 11-03-2010 at 09:41 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fordfanboy
GT S197 General Discussion
10
09-25-2006 03:53 AM
