Discussion in 'Need for Speed!' started by awdrocks, October 12, 2007.
Your right CDW, bigger IS better.
Join the Elite Explorers for $20 for 2 years!
Explorer Forum has probably saved you that much already, and will continue to save you money as you learn how to diagnose
fix problems yourself, and learn which modifications work without having to experiment on your own.
Elite Explorer members see practically no ads, can add their own profile photo, upload photo attachments directly to your posts and Media Gallery,
create more private Conversations, and more. Join Today. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Log in or Sign up to hide adverts.
Why not just go with a dual 3 inch Just in Case you need the room for bigger mods down the road?
I thought this was an et list thread, not a debate on go fast goodies. :thumbdwn:
I logged in to say just that... Also, thank you for updating the main page with the correct info on my run
I am going to do exactly that, but, I will retune the PCM before, and afterwords. We'll see what a huge exhaust does on a bone stock 302 Explorer.
Looks like the new ecoboost guys are playing!!! Looking forward to seeing the efforts.
I suggest making separate category for them since the twin turbos are essentially "stock". What do you all think?
On the front page, I would create an "Ecoboost" section underneath the "Power Adder" as follows:
Performance Modifications and Vehicle Info
I would include them in all boosted vehicles. Place NO2 in a separate category. It's fair to compare/run turbos and blowers together, but not with NO2 or NA cars. If someone comes along with E85 fuel, or alcohol etc, that's another level also.
Also, Jon, can you add Andrew's times to the front page, from his 347 blown Explorer? I gather that you will edit Alex's post, and has anyone heard from him? I could edit my post, which is the 2nd post, but I'm not "ready to play yet." Maybe in 6-9 months I might be working on a blower finally. We'll see.
Welp Im giving her another go tonight folks. same mods as before but have since added a sct 3015 tuner. Im hoping she goes 15.5 or lower since it went 15.6 with just an intake extension and a weld on muffler. Humid/hot day in georgia so who knows. will post my results late tonight!
Looking forward to your results!!! I don't mind being in second, but I won't settle for 3rd..... Good luck and GET IT ON VIDEO!!!
Well I got a few pulls last night and this sct tuner hurt me more than it helped. i was on the 87 octane tune for my first pull but then i swapped it to the 93 tune and added alittle bit of timing. i was running 93 the whole time. I got my 60 fter down but my stock computer setting was running the tune down around the 1000fter. It was basically shifting up to soon i think at the top of 3rd which shows on the 2 compared slips. wasn't able to figure out the shift point setting so i just parked it. Gonna do some searching to see whats the best tune setting everyone is using and give it another go in a few weeks. This should be a 15.4 truck atleast i think. You can see how its even trapping a lower speed because of the low shifts
Yeah, being able to control the shift points will make a huge difference. Can't do it without a $550+ trans controller or a custom burnt chip though...
wow this place is dead lol. ive been working on my rx7. but im going to the track next friday with some friends and im going to turn the sport loose again. I need to see if i can purchase a proven tune though. any recommendations with quick turn arounds?
James Henson is who I recommend. He tuned mine and I dropped .5 seconds with his help. He is also a vendor on here and has helped several other members as well:
Although this isn't really the right thread for a tuning discussion, I agree with "Limited02". My '99 Explorer went from high 16's - low 17's to a 15.87, with nothing more then a K&N FIPK and a James Henson tune. Track numbers aside, the tune greatly improved driveability. The transmission shifting improvements alone were a huge help. It even idled smoother.
I have to disagree. Comparing an entirely different vehicle (C'mon, despite whatever badge Ford wants to slap on it, we all know its not really an "Explorer"), with an entirely different factory turbo motor, to a "hot rodded" custom built 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen Explorer/Ranger is an apples to oranges thing.
It is unfair, and does a disservice to those who put a lot of blood, sweat, tears, and money into making an older SOHC (or OHV) do something it was not built for, and for which there is little aftermarket off the shelf support; vs someone who just went and picked up their new car and drove from the dealership to the track.
I advocate having more categories of vehicles, not less. I didn't even mention older cars versus something new off a dealer lot. I don't see what your point is by quoting my unrelated post a while back.
Make more categories if you like. We don't have enough people involved in this, but I wish that we did have more.
I watch the Top Gear shows occasionally, and they mess with a whole different group of vehicles. I enjoy seeing some of those, but they do seem to ignore most of what we drive over here.
Variety is good.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it appeared, from your post( which was a reply to turdle) and the preceeding conversation, that you were suggesting to include the new ecoboost vehicles in the same category as the "real" Explorers (1st, 2nd, 3rd gen - SOHC/OHV, and 5.0L) with forced induction.
My point was that it wouldn't be fair to the guy spending a lot of time/ money to get his blown/turbo'd 1st/2nd/3rd to the top of the list, in that category, only to be suddenly booted to the middle or bottom, by a bone stock, off the showroom floor ecoboost; with little or no hope of moving back up. A stock ecboost is already at the point where a heavily modded 1st/2nd/3rd gen is pretty much maxed out.
Anyway, no offense intended.
From what I recall the nitrous cars were being mentioned to be mixed with NA cars, that was what I didn't want to start.
I gather that the new Ecoboost vehicles are well done by Ford, I'd like to own one of those for gas mileage. Those are surely well done turbo vehicles, yes I'd bet they would be tough to beat with a heavy Explorer with any boost. What do they run in times, the F150 etc?
Umm. Oops. Excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth........
According to Motor Trend and Car and Driver, the Ecoboost Explorers run about mid 16s, stock.
The F-150 runs about mid 15's "officially". A quick google search indicates that high 14's are common in the real world. Apparently, somebody has gotten into the 12's, and a bunch are in the mid 13's
Those do have relatively small engines, so they have a big job to do. The fast stock turbo cars of history usually don't get over about 3.8 liters. The turbo 3.8 GM's come to mind, the two AWD trucks, Regal, and the Trans Am. Those are rare however, very strong engines at their core.
The SOHC 4.0 Ford is a very good engine, when the valvetrain is under control. The 5 speed autos though have no good upgrades, that sucks.
We are getting a touch out of hand here... You must be looking at the 2.0 Ecoboost because the 3.5's are running mid-14's stock. A simple tune/CAI they are in the bottom 13's and will be touching 12's in proper air.
As mentioned in my previous posts, I believe Ecoboost(13+ Sport Ex) should have their own row.
right lane is me
after looking at a few of other guys times, i know there is a problem with mine.
I'm right lane.
The syclone and typhoon had 4.3's
Shame more guys arent into hotrodding these things.............i'm going to try and sneak the mountaineer up to the 1/8th. mile track once the weather cools down