high powered NA!

[darkandroid1234]

For example - the 2.8litre V6 engine that came in the Mustang, Bronco etc (12v OHV), in the US, produced 95hp, over in the UK - same engine was 160hp, simply through removing all the emissions shite

There was never a 2.8v6 in the mustang, from the fox body mustangs (1979-93)it was either 5.0v8 180/200/225 hp versions, 3.8 v6 140hp, or 2.3 I4 for 90hp, for the newer ones (94-today) it's 5.0 v8 225/235hp, 4.6 v8 in different model 240-300+hp, 4.0 v6 210hp, 3.8 ~140hp...

There was never a 2.8v6 in the bronco either the bronco was a fullsize that shred the F150 platform and V8/I6, the Bronco II was shared with the ranger (and was not a Bronco IMO) and had a 2.9 v6 for 140hp, the ranger was 4.0L v6 165hp, 3.0v6 145hp, 2.9 v6 140hp, 2.3L I4 90hp or 2.0L I4 80hp.

 

[AlbertaBeef]

There was never a 2.8v6 in the mustang, from the fox body mustangs (1979-93)it was either 5.0v8 180/200/225 hp versions, 3.8 v6 140hp, or 2.3 I4 for 90hp, for the newer ones (94-today) it's 5.0 v8 225/235hp, 4.6 v8 in different model 240-300+hp, 4.0 v6 210hp, 3.8 ~140hp...

There was never a 2.8v6 in the bronco either the bronco was a fullsize that shred the F150 platform and V8/I6, the Bronco II was shared with the ranger (and was not a Bronco IMO) and had a 2.9 v6 for 140hp, the ranger was 4.0L v6 165hp, 3.0v6 145hp, 2.9 v6 140hp, 2.3L I4 90hp or 2.0L I4 80hp.

May not have been a 2.8L V6, but there certainly was a mustang with 2.8L inline... My dad has one. I think that's the engine Kai is talking about.

 

[Kai]

Sorry guys - i have to correct you here:

The 1974 introduction of the Mustang II earned Ford Motor Trend magazine's Car of the Year honors again and actually returned the car to more than a semblance of its 1964 predecessor in size, shape, and overall styling. Though Iacocca insisted that the Mustang II be finished to quality standards unheard of in the American auto industry, the Mustang II suffered from being not only smaller than the original car, but heavier and slower as well. Available as a hardtop or three-door hatchback, the new car's base engine was a 2.3 L SOHC I4, the first fully metric engine built in the U.S. for installation in an American car. A 2.8 L V6 was the sole optional engine, meaning the popular V8 option would disappear for the first and only time in 1974, and Ford was swamped by buyer mail and criticized in the automotive press for it.

And if you look on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine#2.8

You'll see it was also put into the Bronco and the Ranger

Ah thank you, thank you :naughty:

 

[Tanya]

ew, how'd this convo go from supras to ford rangers and bronco IIs?

uke:

 

[AGlobalThreat]

Tanya I believe you but not these people just throwing out rwhp numbers. 200 crank hp new, subract wear and tear and then 15% drivetrain loss. Then add mods.

People think these cars have the same hp they're labelled with, not only are they wrong about that, but 99% of the time they're labelled in CRANK horsepower, not wheel. Hence the reason why people dyno brand new cars and get much lower than advertised numbers.

You can't just buy new parts and say oh there's 10 more horsepower from the stock 200, ok here's 15 more, 10 more. You need actual proof, cuz honestly I think you people throwing out numbers are just making them up.

Tanya knows exactly what I'm talking about, everyone else just sees these numbers and forgets the numerous negative variables. People don't understand how low their HP output is on these engines, they forget how much hp is lost through such simple things such as wear and tear, temperature, elevation, cooling, etc. i could go on forever.

250rwhp 7mge easy? Ok. Do it. Then dyno come back and post. Until then, the only one I see working is Allan.

Sorry for being such a downer in this thread, I loved my NA, but I can't stand all this bullshit and nonsense goin on in here :\

 

[Allan_MA70]

Not this Allan! NA power is not cost effective or as rewarding!

for NA power to be of value start with something that likes to rev such as a 2JZ or even better a 1UZ !!!

 

[Jervis Mcstabby]

Sorry guys - i have to correct you here:



And if you look on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cologne_V6_engine#2.8

You'll see it was also put into the Bronco and the Ranger

Ah thank you, thank you :naughty:

:runaway: uke: That's one butt ugly POS engine! And only 160hp? That's as useless as the RR Discovery and its whopping 198hp V8!:blah: Sorry that was way off-topic.

 

[darkandroid1234]

Maybe it was put in Mustang II's, but not in REAL Mustangs. And not in the years I stated. And as for the Bronco II and Ranger, never have I seen a 2.8L v6 in one here in the US, and that's where I'm from. :icon_razz

 

[AlbertaBeef]

Sorry guys - i have to correct you here:
Ah thank you, thank you :naughty:

You're welcome, but still wrong, lol. My dad's stang is a 170CI 101HP engine with 4spd manual transmission. It's an inline 6. if you do the math, 170 CI = 2.8L and it's most certainly an I-6. And here's further proof, if you don't believe the car I looked at my entire life: http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/1999/lweitzman_fordmustang_gt.html
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Straight-6_engine scroll down to falcon engine, 170...

Now lets get back to increasing HP on the NA, shall we?

Looks like I might be getting an NA for my wife, in addition to the 7m-gte I want - Can y'all tell me, does a bolt-on cold air intake/K&N filter by itself (without any other mods) make any noticable improvement? To either power or fuel economy?

 

[johnathan1]

I put a K&N FIPK on my NA, and honestly, I could't really tell a difference...

 

[PROJECT N00b]

really now? what about the typhoon?

 

[johnathan1]

lol, I've never tried the typhoon...

 

[Fuzz420]

I put a K&N FIPK on my NA, and honestly, I could't really tell a difference...

I did but i already had a cat-back in place

 

[Kai]

Er, i never said yours didnt have an I6 AlbertaBeef - just that there WAS a 2.8 V6 put in the mustangs

A Mustang is a Mustang to me - they all look different through the years, and have different engines - but i've never been in one, never even seen a real one up close. Nearest i've come, is Bullitt and Gone in 60 Seconds

As for the K&N 57i, i got one on mine - and the noise is slightly different, pretty good pickup and theres the advantage that you dont need to replace it - only clean it every now and then.

Besides - its always better to have one than not - its at least one mod

 

[Kai]

ew, how'd this convo go from supras to ford rangers and bronco IIs?

uke:

Was trying to illustrate that removing the Catalytic converter and related pointless emissions crap can drastically affect the performance of the engines.

 

[Kai]

Tanya I believe you but not these people just throwing out rwhp numbers. 200 crank hp new, subract wear and tear and then 15% drivetrain loss. Then add mods.

People think these cars have the same hp they're labelled with, not only are they wrong about that, but 99% of the time they're labelled in CRANK horsepower, not wheel. Hence the reason why people dyno brand new cars and get much lower than advertised numbers.

You can't just buy new parts and say oh there's 10 more horsepower from the stock 200, ok here's 15 more, 10 more. You need actual proof, cuz honestly I think you people throwing out numbers are just making them up.

Tanya knows exactly what I'm talking about, everyone else just sees these numbers and forgets the numerous negative variables. People don't understand how low their HP output is on these engines, they forget how much hp is lost through such simple things such as wear and tear, temperature, elevation, cooling, etc. i could go on forever.

250rwhp 7mge easy? Ok. Do it. Then dyno come back and post. Until then, the only one I see working is Allan.

Sorry for being such a downer in this thread, I loved my NA, but I can't stand all this bullshit and nonsense goin on in here :\

I had a dyno run on my N/A, i'll see if i can dig it out. Getting 250rwhp isnt impossible on an N/A, hell - BMW manage to get high performance I6's, why should Toyota engines be any different?

As for being negative - well, turbocharging isnt the holy grail - and yes, while its easier to make 'Big Power', N/A still has nice, smooth power delivery and its not pitifully low horsepower like you seem to be making it out to be.

I say if people want to get power out of the N/A - let them. Those who say 'it cannot be done' are standing in the way of people that are doing it.

One thing i will add, is that not everyone wants face distorting, bowel loosening speeds, or to run 1/4 miles. I'm interested in using my car where it matters, on the road, who cares if i do a 1/4 mile in xx amount of seconds - does that make a difference to my life? Are people really going to care that i'm faster than someone else, and if they do, will I care? Not really.

Some people might take pleasure out of going to a drag strip. I take pleasure in driving my supra down a normal road with these things called 'bends'. That strange wheel you hold isnt just for keeping it in a straight line

 

[PROJECT N00b]

I had a dyno run on my N/A, i'll see if i can dig it out. Getting 250rwhp isnt impossible on an N/A, hell - BMW manage to get high performance I6's, why should Toyota engines be any different?

As for being negative - well, turbocharging isnt the holy grail - and yes, while its easier to make 'Big Power', N/A still has nice, smooth power delivery and its not pitifully low horsepower like you seem to be making it out to be.

I say if people want to get power out of the N/A - let them. Those who say 'it cannot be done' are standing in the way of people that are doing it.

One thing i will add, is that not everyone wants face distorting, bowel loosening speeds, or to run 1/4 miles. I'm interested in using my car where it matters, on the road, who cares if i do a 1/4 mile in xx amount of seconds - does that make a difference to my life? Are people really going to care that i'm faster than someone else, and if they do, will I care? Not really.

Some people might take pleasure out of going to a drag strip. I take pleasure in driving my supra down a normal road with these things called 'bends'. That strange wheel you hold isnt just for keeping it in a straight line

amen!

 

[TRACKMKIII]

I had a dyno run on my N/A, i'll see if i can dig it out. Getting 250rwhp isnt impossible on an N/A, hell - BMW manage to get high performance I6's, why should Toyota engines be any different?

As for being negative - well, turbocharging isnt the holy grail - and yes, while its easier to make 'Big Power', N/A still has nice, smooth power delivery and its not pitifully low horsepower like you seem to be making it out to be.

I say if people want to get power out of the N/A - let them. Those who say 'it cannot be done' are standing in the way of people that are doing it.

One thing i will add, is that not everyone wants face distorting, bowel loosening speeds, or to run 1/4 miles. I'm interested in using my car where it matters, on the road, who cares if i do a 1/4 mile in xx amount of seconds - does that make a difference to my life? Are people really going to care that i'm faster than someone else, and if they do, will I care? Not really.

Some people might take pleasure out of going to a drag strip. I take pleasure in driving my supra down a normal road with these things called 'bends'. That strange wheel you hold isnt just for keeping it in a straight line

High five!!

 

[Kai]

Hey - just getting the good vibes back

Although worshipping minions could be advantageous....

 

[Tanya]

Was trying to illustrate that removing the Catalytic converter and related pointless emissions crap can drastically affect the performance of the engines.

How about underrating? Which is something that Ford is apparently good at. While the books say the engine is 95hp at the crank, how many people dyno'd their stock engines and saw (lets say 18% drivetrain loss) 77whp?

I'm not being a dick, I really want to know b/c I'm fascinated as to how removing emissions could possibly increase horsepower from 95hp to 160, unless the emissions equipped vehicle was slightly underrated from the begining. I'd be more apt to believe the US version is really around 130 crank hp, but underrated to 95 for whatever insane Ford reason. I removed my emissions crap and didn't gain jackshit from it, maybe 1 or 2hp at best.

I had a dyno run on my N/A, i'll see if i can dig it out. Getting 250rwhp isnt impossible on an N/A, hell - BMW manage to get high performance I6's, why should Toyota engines be any different?

As I previously stated, there's a 240whp 6MGE running around in AUS (race car)... I wish I could find the link to where I read that, but I can't
So no, it's not impossible at all. BMW, however, has a different technology. The Toyota M series engine is quite old actually, while BMWs inline 6s are pretty new (AFAIK) so it's almost apples and oranges.