Stevecooper

I guess I just don't understand why you gave this information...

"The stock rev-limiter scalar value in the tune is set to 1513,"

If he has an SCT tuner isn't this irrelevant?

defconfire

All of us know that Cliffy loves trivial information. If its irrelevant or not, its always nice to be informed.

lol but that did seem really irrelevant.

cliffyk

Perhaps, however I wanted to go back to the "raw" data in my assertion that the OEM rev-limiter is 6052 rpm--it really is, on dumps I've seen from over 20 box codes.

Engineering discipline demands documenting your sources...

defconfire

I am actually shocked that the stock limiter is set at 6052, I always thought it was set at 5750 or 5800.

Also isn't the GT's rotating assembly nearly identical to the mach1's and the 99 cobra with the exception of the crank.

So does that meant that the stock rods are good to over 6800?

cliffyk

I can't help it, most of my working life has been in serious engineering environments (I did a spell with Lockheed Martin Astronautics at the Cape) in which contrary to populist opinion, we honestly did try to find the best solutions to the problems at hand.

To make this work you have to be certain that your colleagues have the same understanding, and access to, to most base data with which you (both the individual and **********) are working.

It would seem I am unconsciously extending that operational philosophy to this forum, and seeking to include all of you in that group of colleagues so that we might find better answers.

I hope that is considered a good thing®...

defconfire

lol you tried to say "individual and co1lectively"

Your not allowed to say colle-ctive on these forums.

cliffyk

I have no information regarding any of this, however one has to understand that Ford's only consideration of the engine's actual point of failure in setting the rev-limiter on plain ol' run of the mill GTs (like mine), was to ensure that it was sufficiently below the failure point so as to minimise warranty callbacks.

That said they were marketing it as a performance car, and that fact is that most owners of mass production "performance" cars never even come close to pushing it anywhere near its limits. Witness the number of postings here by people who shift at 2500 rpm, and those think they may have damaged their motor because they missed a shift and it went to 5500 rpm!!!

Oddly much of the maximum rpm conventional wisdom seems to be mired more in the limitations of push rod motors than in the metallurgy of either those or the overhead cam modular engines (which frankly has not changed all that much).

Push rod motors were/are severely rpm limited because of the relatively high mass of the valve train components. Mostly, the valves would start to "float" around 5500 rpm and VE would go down the toilet.

Our overhead cam engines have probably less than 1/2 the valve train mass of a push rod engine and in combination with the COP ignition system can easily maintain useful power to over 6000 rpm. The Ducati desmodromic bike engines carried this to the extreme that they had no valve springs and used cams to both open and close the valves to almost eliminate valve float.

The OEM TB and plenum are the two components most conspicuously and oddly engineered to restrict this--makes you wonder...

cliffyk

What would the Borg do?

I don't get it---why cannot I "say" **********, if that is the appropriate and desired noun I wished to use?

cliffyk

WTF, what the heck is offensive or inappropriate about the word ********** (BTW, **********ly would have been inappropriate as it is an adverb)...

cliffyk

This is really screwed, and in combination with the BS intellitxt.com popups may be enough to push me away from here altogether...

As I have said in earlier posts I am an old fella (62), is there some politically incorrect association with the word "**********" that I am not aware of?