4.6L General Discussion This section is for non-tech specific information pertaining to 4.6L (Modular) Mustangs built from 1996 to 2004.

got the forged rotating assembly down, now the heads

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-11-2009, 12:20 AM
  #41  
Fobra
Banned
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location:
Posts: 4,064
Default

Originally Posted by teej281
id go with a 17cc piston to lower it a bit more. I wouldnt go with like 23 but i dont think i'd be running a 9.6:1 compression ratio. I would run that if i were doing turbo but not supercharger because with a turbo there is the added benefit with quicker spool time with the higher compression. There really isnt that added benefit with a belt driven supercharger...might be slightly more power but added threat of detonation. So i'd go with the lower compression then if i were you.
You guys are talking about static compression, I was referring to final or dynamic compression.
Fobra is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:22 AM
  #42  
amoosenamedhank
5th Gear Member
 
amoosenamedhank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 4,412
Default

I'm not sure where you're located, but around here E-85 is everywhere. I don't necessarily support the stuff, but it's hard to argue with the octane rating/price ratio it's sporting.

If I ever get around to making this car something, E-85 is definitely going to be in my plans to remove a lot of detonation concerns.
amoosenamedhank is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:43 AM
  #43  
97stanger
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
97stanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,769
Default

i have heard good stuff about E-85 as well. I dont know if I want to go that route though
97stanger is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:59 AM
  #44  
teej281
4.6L Section Moderator
 
teej281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 10,286
Default

Well it requires substantially more fuel though. So for the price, its probably gonna be more expensive than premium but not as much as race gas but will make more power. I'd rather just run meth and every once and a while just have to fill up a small tank rather than everyday filling it up with E85. I used to think E85 was the best thing ever but the fuel requirements are so high that its not worth it to use it when methanol injection will do the same thing and you can just run premium gas for dd. just my thoughts.
teej281 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:01 AM
  #45  
amoosenamedhank
5th Gear Member
 
amoosenamedhank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 4,412
Default

Well from what I've seen the fuel consumption is around 18-22% higher. I don't DD my car, so I guess I view it differently. I'd much rather do E-85... if not for the smell alone!
amoosenamedhank is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:17 AM
  #46  
teej281
4.6L Section Moderator
 
teej281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 10,286
Default

It smells different??? Ive been looking into it and there is just a lot more to it than its worth. You need to remove aluminum, rubber, and magnesium components out of the fuel system. You need A LOT more fuel than when running 93 pump gas. You need to go to a tuner that knows how to tune E85 fueled cars. It just isnt worth it to run E85. Turbo cars like using it because there is more mass to the exhaust gases so it will spool the turbo quicker, from what ive heard from my Supra buddies that are considering the switch. So for turbos theres that added benefit which might be worth it but i dont think that it would be worth it for a supercharged car when methanol is quite adequate and will give you more detonation resistance than the ethanol will. Just my opinion.
teej281 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:18 AM
  #47  
Furinox
4th Gear Member
 
Furinox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,667
Default

Originally Posted by sxynerd
how many pump gas guys do you know that run 9.5:1 on a built & blown motor???? It's retarded. There's a reason all pro mod shops suggest lower compression for pump gas DD. (But what do I know?)
I have about a 9.2 compression on my motor and wish I would have gone back to stock compression. Much easier to make 550ish on 10:1 with about 10-12 lbs of boost rather than needing 15 to make that number. Lower timing and with a good tune you don't have to worry about detonation.

I've talked to several centri guys running 700-1000rwhp and they prefer higher compression as well.
Furinox is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 11:23 AM
  #48  
teej281
4.6L Section Moderator
 
teej281's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 10,286
Default

Do you get more torque from running higher compression when using a blower???
teej281 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:55 PM
  #49  
97stanger
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
 
97stanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,769
Default

yeah, i pretty much have my whole build planned out besides what cc piston to go with and the exact fuel setup I want to run...
97stanger is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GimpyHSHS
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
19
12-19-2023 01:12 PM
mustangheaven
Motor Swap Section
3
01-03-2016 11:20 AM
kevsgt
2005-2014 Mustangs
5
10-09-2015 10:12 PM
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
0
10-01-2015 09:21 AM
Drastang
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
2
09-30-2015 03:48 AM



Quick Reply: got the forged rotating assembly down, now the heads



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.