Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Domestic Cars
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-11-2005, 03:03 AM   #1
Carlos Traveria
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12
Natural Asperation

What are the pros and cons of increasing the natural asperation of my 4.6 mustang? i want to work on that soon, but need to know as much as possible. thank you
Carlos Traveria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 04:46 AM   #2
Godlaus
UnFedFat in Disguise
 
Godlaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Traveria
What are the pros and cons of increasing the natural asperation of my 4.6 mustang? i want to work on that soon, but need to know as much as possible. thank you




Increasing the displacement, you mean?

pro = more power
con = pre detonation problems on larger compression ratio
.........Gas Guzzler
.........Need a lot up upgrades for larger stroker kits

Is it worth it? Well, that's up to you. for mean, i find easier,faster and cheaper ways to make more power out of a mustang than a stroker kit. 5 liters is enough as it is.
__________________
I am everything you want to be
Godlaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 04:56 AM   #3
NISSANSPDR
and the Revolution
 
NISSANSPDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 591
Naturally aspirated simply means no turbo...or all motor...I think all motor is great and the most reliable out of either NA or FI (forced induction). Sure FI can be reliable but to go fast...it's hard

All motor can be fast...there are some big blocks that are fast, there are small blocks that are fast, there are V12's and V10's that are all motor and are fast as hell...some 4 cylinders are fast too like the Integra Type R motor...so all motor for me...means streetable and liveable
__________________
Yours truly,
Gabriel
NISSANSPDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2005, 11:35 PM   #4
Import-tuner
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Redding, California
Posts: 145
...and the bonus of a NA car is (to me) the coolness factor. its totally sick when you see an all motor car hittings 11's or faster.
Import-tuner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 12:23 AM   #5
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godlaus



Increasing the displacement, you mean?

pro = more power
con = pre detonation problems on larger compression ratio
.........Gas Guzzler
.........Need a lot up upgrades for larger stroker kits

Is it worth it? Well, that's up to you. for mean, i find easier,faster and cheaper ways to make more power out of a mustang than a stroker kit. 5 liters is enough as it is.
How do you automatically equate increased dispalcement with increased compression? Are you implying that a 7.0L engine with 7:1 compression would be more likely to detonate than a 5.0L engine with 10:1 compression? It sure sounds like it. Explain yourself.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 12:26 AM   #6
Wally
I Know More Than You
 
Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 2,564
N/A or blown, the production engineering and effort is still substantial. It's a buzz hurling any car down the track regardless of times and the type of engine. But I don't think car companies are particularly interested in mass producing cars that are made for ¼mile purpose.


I think what Carlos is asking is the whys and wherefores of reducing intake air losses and increasing VE e.g. better intake pipe arrangement, better throttle body, better plenum, better intake runners, better porting and better bowls.
__________________
"She gave me a look only a mother could give a child."
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 12:45 AM   #7
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
How do you automatically equate increased dispalcement with increased compression? Are you implying that a 7.0L engine with 7:1 compression would be more likely to detonate than a 5.0L engine with 10:1 compression? It sure sounds like it. Explain yourself.

Well, the explanation was rather poor (i.e. nonexistant), I am actually on your side on this one. But here's what I think he was going for. If you have a motor with X displacement and all you do is increase the stroke (assume we shortened the rods as well), but you still maintain the same pistons and head, and therefore the same combustion volume; you will increase the static compression ratio.

To the original poster: What were you hoping to gain from this post? I have no clue what information to try and convey to you or what information you're actually looking for. Wally, you may be right, but it still seems like a vague post.
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 01:06 AM   #8
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bino
Well, the explanation was rather poor (i.e. nonexistant), I am actually on your side on this one. But here's what I think he was going for. If you have a motor with X displacement and all you do is increase the stroke (assume we shortened the rods as well), but you still maintain the same pistons and head, and therefore the same combustion volume; you will increase the static compression ratio.

To the original poster: What were you hoping to gain from this post? I have no clue what information to try and convey to you or what information you're actually looking for. Wally, you may be right, but it still seems like a vague post.
Huh? Did you know that in the real world, if you stroke your engine you run pistons with a different pin height or rod length? Did you know that as long as you're performing mods you can change all sorts of dimensions such as deck height, combustion chamber CC's, piston dome/dish/relief CC's and head gasket thickness? You're assuming that you would only change one thing in this theoretical engine which is fine, but... I don't build theories.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 01:44 AM   #9
Godlaus
UnFedFat in Disguise
 
Godlaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,697
Well, you'll have to excuse my sense of knowing what a stroker kit does. To my knowledge, it raises the stroke depth, and because of that, the compression ratio will generally rise.

I haven't done very many performance upgrades on very many cars. Hence, things like stroker kits/turbos/any form of power, is all put together in my mind.

Quote:
You're assuming that you would only change one thing in this theoretical engine
That's generally how I think out these problems, simply changing the stroke, and nothing else.

Still, I'm halfway right in my 'speculation' that the compression ratio would rise.

I've explained myself, can you see it from my point of view now?
__________________
I am everything you want to be
Godlaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 01:53 AM   #10
Wally
I Know More Than You
 
Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 2,564
yeah its a trap for the uninitiated. When you stroke, its pretty uncommon to use the same rods and pistons because the head has a nasty habit of stopping full travel. So the compression height of the piston is shortened and the rod length often increased to maintain good angles (and acceleration).
__________________
"She gave me a look only a mother could give a child."
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 02:15 AM   #11
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
Huh? Did you know that in the real world, if you stroke your engine you run pistons with a different pin height or rod length? Did you know that as long as you're performing mods you can change all sorts of dimensions such as deck height, combustion chamber CC's, piston dome/dish/relief CC's and head gasket thickness? You're assuming that you would only change one thing in this theoretical engine which is fine, but... I don't build theories.

Woooow. Is that why everybody doesn't have a 383 stroker with a 13:1 compression ratio. I'll be damned Mearle you here what this here fella's sayin' huh huh.

Obviously people change everything. I merely stated his logic, which was correct logic. But it's not the correct way to build the engine. Thanks once again for the ill tempered post which was totally unnecessary.

Last edited by Bino : 04-12-2005 at 03:26 AM.
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 03:35 AM   #12
CarEXPERT
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bino
Well, the explanation was rather poor (i.e. nonexistant), I am actually on your side on this one. But here's what I think he was going for. If you have a motor with X displacement and all you do is increase the stroke (assume we shortened the rods as well), but you still maintain the same pistons and head, and therefore the same combustion volume; you will increase the static compression ratio.

To the original poster: What were you hoping to gain from this post? I have no clue what information to try and convey to you or what information you're actually looking for. Wally, you may be right, but it still seems like a vague post.

yes this is right if you leave everything the same.

But if you increase an engines displacement, does the top-end horsepower get weaker because low torque increase right?
On BIG displacement engines like mustangs, like redline at like 6000RPM and their torque curve go down earlier than like a small displacement Honda where they redline at like 7000-8000RPM and their torque curve is constant and goes down only a little at hight RPM.

So does displacement effect the redline and powercurve of an engien?
CarEXPERT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2005, 04:42 AM   #13
srober32
CF Addict
 
srober32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 442
Torque curves have more to do with cam shafts and valve timing than piston displacement. And if you put a crank with a longer stroke in an engine and shorten the con rods without changing the pistons to a higher wrist pin height wouldn't you be pulling the pistons out of the bottom of the cylender?
__________________
When replacing your altenator, make sure your battery is fully charged.

Last edited by srober32 : 04-12-2005 at 05:53 PM.
srober32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 02:36 AM   #14
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bino
Woooow. Is that why everybody doesn't have a 383 stroker with a 13:1 compression ratio. I'll be damned Mearle you here what this here fella's sayin' huh huh.

Obviously people change everything. I merely stated his logic, which was correct logic. But it's not the correct way to build the engine. Thanks once again for the ill tempered post which was totally unnecessary.
How can you possibly speak for what his logic was? Have you done a Vulcan mind meld? Maybe you have a crystal ball.

If you change nothing other than the crank, you're only going to be able to increase the stroke MAYBE .020" before the pistons start colliding with the heads. That is not a stroker engine in anyone's book although it would be as a pure technicality.

By the way, thank you for appointing yourself as the official forum "identifier of the unnecessary. Please ad your post to the list.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2005, 04:40 AM   #15
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
How can you possibly speak for what his logic was? Have you done a Vulcan mind meld? Maybe you have a crystal ball.

If you change nothing other than the crank, you're only going to be able to increase the stroke MAYBE .020" before the pistons start colliding with the heads. That is not a stroker engine in anyone's book although it would be as a pure technicality.

By the way, thank you for appointing yourself as the official forum "identifier of the unnecessary. Please ad your post to the list.

A) I said I "think" this was his logic, which was an attempt to help. Much unlike any portion of your post.
B) I said we shortened the rod (I.E. we used a shorter rod). Read the thread (as you've stated a billion times)
C) You're welcome, anything I can do to help
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.