Man if people with 4cy's hate the people with 8cy's what do they think of the guys with 12 cy's? heh

 

You have to give quite a bit of respect for producing an engine like the 4G63 that produces 135 hp/liter(flywheel) while still maintaining a reliable product. Anyone can strap a nasty V8 in an engine bay. Technology over displacement is a beautiful thing, doing more with less. This what every engineer in the world should be trying to do.

rimmie

 

= blown motor If you know better, it takes a lot more than the simple pulley to get into 11's. Get the facts straight before posting some BS like that.

 

Gvr4wd - 11's are pretty simple.... blower pulley and chip to go with it to get the proper a/f ratio.... that is about it to get into the 11's.... 11.5 = exhaust, chip, intake and pulley....

There are lots of guys who have their times posted in their "signatures" on the svt board...they are for real. My cobra ran 12.4 on stock **** tires with exhaust and chip.... plus my ****ty driving to boot.

With the proper a/f ratio dialed in (on a dyno, then burned onto the chip) there really have been no problems of blowing up cars...

Hope that helps...... although..in my opinion...all that power makes it pretty hard to launch quickly on a normal road.

 

Did I start this pissing contest?

 

No, you need to get your facts straight. I am one of the founders of the Houston Stangers and an admin on FordPower.net, a board that my buddy runs. All my friends drive Mustangs, I have owned 2 in the 4 years I have lived here, and I have numerous friends who own Cobras. The Cobra will run lean with the pulley, but I know of at least 3 people who have run them hard without getting chips. Now, if you want to talk about getting your facts straight then come on down and I'll hook you up against a pullied Cobra or two and we'll see who's spewing the BS. Game?

 

Making a statement like that, it's somewhat obvious you're not an engineer. Most engineers spend 80% of thier time trying to make stuff less expensive. Unless of course you are working on military defense contracts or trying to put the space shuttle in orbit. In those industries where mission critical components must work the first time, 100% of the time, price is no object.

That's not the automotive industry though. Technology is expensive, displacement isn't. That being said the mod motor in the 2003 Cobra isn't exactly *low* tech. It doesn't run on coal dust, or feed all cylinders through one intake or exhaust port, or use a one barrel carburtor, etc. Also, what makes anyone think the 4g63 is higher tech than any other engine? I know people don't want to hear this, but it's not. ALL internal combustion engines are based on anchient (sp) technology with roots dating to the late 1800's. All have the same basic systems and sub systems, and all have some inherent compromises based on the original design intent. Sure, the 4G63 is a well designed engine, which is very strong because of that good design, but don't confuse that with high tech. They aren't the same things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Cobras. I've owned and raced Mustangs since 1989, and frankly, I think most Mustang owners are just as dumb as most import owners. Each car has it's own advantages and it's own disadvantages, but people have different opinionsnd desires, so one car which isn't attractive to one person may look great to another.

As for the 135 hp/liter (which in my opinion is an irrelevant measurement), what happens when someone sticks a turbo with an 80 mm inducer on a well built, well planned, small block Ford? Can you say an easy 1000 hp? I can. Displacement IS everything, because 25 psi manifold pressure on 302+ cubic inches makes a whole lot more power than 25 psi on a 120 cubic inch engine, assuming the same engine speeds.

I guess I'm rambling.

 

how is a guy that drives a 02 lancer es talking so much smack?

 

Man, some of you people are just plain dumb. Am I talking smack about my car? I'll give you a hint for the answer - it's the opposite of yes.

A thread starts about how the SVT owners are poo pooing the Lancer and possessing little knowledge. Yet, you guys turned into bigger babies than the SVT guys. You're worse than that you were condemning.

 

Actually, I am an engineer, electrical to be exact, so you know what they say about assumptions I do reseach work and I spend quite a bit of time doing exactly what I said, doing more with less. I never said a damn thing about cost, but believe me I am fully aware of this as I have to deal with this everyday. The point I was trying to make (which you completely missed) was has done and excellent job of squeezing a good bit of performance into a rather small and ordinary package. Sure it is easy to get a good bit of horsepower out of an engine with more than twice the displacement. The easy way out is to increase displacement when looking for extra ponies because it is quite often the cheapest way to add reliable power with the least amount of work and dyno time. So does this mean that every time an automaker wants to increase the output of an engine they are just supposed abandon the old one and strap a bigger one in the engine bay? I would hope not! Quite a bit more effort has to go into creating an engine such a the 4G63 in order for to feel confident enough that the high power output is not going to effect reliability. If everyone thought they way you do, engineers would be making absolutely no remarkable discoveries in the automotive industry. We would just be reverting back to the old saying "bigger is better". This is why I respect for not feeling the need to add displacement to look for reliable power. They have done it through careful research. This may not be the best business practice, I'm sure Ford is making a killing off of the Cobra's with a floor pan stamp that has been around for centuries. But you have to recognize the fact that car such as the EVO are being produced for the mass market and are reliable enough to be considered a daily driver through research. This I can respect!


rimmie

 

Well, your profile says you're a student. Technically, you aren't an engineer until you pass the PE exam and become licensed. Most people use the term "engineer" on thier business cards and stuff, but that's not correct, and technically they are not recognized as engineers by the state and cannot contract or consult as engineers if they didn't pass the PE exam.

Anyway, I was not flaming you in my first post, sorry if you took it the wrong way.

Well, the fact is, there haven't been many remarkable discoveries in the automotive industry in a long time. Mostly it's just rehashing existing technology in new form factors or with some refinements. Get out and work in industry for 8 or 10 years and you will see what I mean. New technology normally doesn't get integrated until it's been proven elsewhere for a period of time.

 

im not plain dumb, im just pointing out a simple ironic fact that you are all talking smack about the Evo and dont even drive one. in fact, you drive less than an Evo, you drive a regular lancer.. now tell me, who's the dumb one now?

 

I call it BS because Rustangs cannot run 11's without at least slicks even with superchargers boosted up. You call that simple pulley swap? If you want to get the facts straight, give me the exact numbers for who has run 11s with only the pulley (nothing else), then I'll shut up.

You said you have owned two, what are your times? You never stated your times, but others.

 

I agree. I met a guy with a vortech supercharged 99 GT with 408whp. He said that his car can easily run 11's but admitted that he needs slicks to do anything under 12.5. And if he floors it too soon he'll burn through gears 1 - 3. All that torque makes it hard for him to hook-up.

 

The PE exam has nothing to do with claiming the title of engineer. This is not like being an accountant or a lawyer. The PE exam is taken by those who are hoping to work for a consulting firm. Passing the PE helps you get insurance so that you can place a seal or a signature on a document. In order to get this they first have to take the FE exam (usually taken in senior year of college), which I have taken and passed. I am not interested in taking the PE at this time because I have no interest in working as a consultant. I do reseach work, and this research work is backed by a large company who will be reviewing my work and providing insurance should something go wrong. So claiming that someone who has graduated from a college of engineering and now does reseach work cannot claim the title of engineer is completely wrong. I know lots of people who have the title of engineer (and are some damn good engineers mind you) who have not passed the PE exam. Big deal, so they don't want to work as a consultant, that is their business. But that does not mean that i'm going to demean them by saying that they are not "true engineers" until they have passed the PE exam. You are obviously not an engineer if you did not know this.

Cheers
rimmie