1999 Explorer ---Saleen XP8

[ChuckyD]

OOOOO i would LOVE one of these!!!
Dead Link Removed

 

[rustytr]

And it's still slower than a Jeep Grand Cherokee LTD.

 

[RFR2212]

Maybe not the fastest, but I still think that is one of the best looking street setups... Appearance that is. I'd love to have one
Pete

 

[leenjen]

it is nice. and i would like it.
BUT...

i've seen much better street explorer that were built not bought, for less money. custom always looks better (well not always, i've seen some ugly street suvs too).

 

[ChuckyD]

i cant believe that that explorer is slower then a jeep


How do you know that?

 

[rpenner54]

Man I have always wanted to get one of those... That one needs a whole lot of work to make it workable though. Chop those running boards off, get rid of the pansy wheels and tires and front axle, toss a D-44 in it along with an Atlas and you got yourself a pretty dang decent ride. With a built motor and a nice interior.

 

[rpenner54]

Originally posted by ChuckyD
i cant believe that that explorer is slower then a jeep


How do you know that?

5.9L vs 5.0L... the more cubes the faster you go.

 

[ChuckyD]

lol you can always go by that... 5.0L supercharged by the way..

Although i do agree... "There is no replacement for Displacement"

 

[BislamJoe]

No replacement for displacement.

But I imagine that if you gave that Saleen the treatment that Troll's ride has, that Jeep wouldn't hold up. But that's comparing a heavily modified vehicle against a stockish one, and that's not fair.

 

[blk mk8]

well trolls little sister has a jeep with 5.2 v8 and she hangs out on there bored and there are a lot of them with 5.9 and vortech blower and they are all slower then trolls even with more cubes. all so trolls truck has a cobra look to it.

 

[tbomb]

Originally posted by rpenner54


5.9L vs 5.0L... the more cubes the faster you go.

i totally disagree. that was the rule of thumb in the 70's, heh. today is the day of forced injection (i.e.: superchargers, turbos, not to mention, NOS.) im not talking from a ricers point of view either - im a big mustang fan, and my roommate is a hrdcore mustang guy, so i really know more than i care to.

another thing, besides forced injection vs. naturally aspirated, is what the motor has done to it. how does a 4.6L mustang blow the doors off a camaro with a 350 in it?...even a mustang with a 302 can kill a camaro with a 350, or even an old vette with a big block! hell, a 70 chevelle with a 454 only ran mid 13's, i think.

displacement is not the final word on power and/or speed.

 

[aldive]

What you say is simply not true.

You do the "identical" build on a 4 l motor and on a 7 l motor and see which one makes the most HP?

 

[zensius]

I agree with tbomb. In the 60's and seventies engineers went faster by adding more combustion space. But that's not the case today. The 'Smokey and the Bandit' Firebird has a 7.7 liter engine which is huge. But it only had something like 170hp which is feable. So there's a lot more to going fast. Some say a good rule of thumb is a horsepower to cubes ratio. Another good one is horsepower to weight. And then there's the final gear ratio. When do you want to do fast? This is usable horsepower. Do you want it out of the block? Or do you want high end? And I think 'There's no replacement for displacement' refers more to torque than horsepower. All these variables are what make racing interesting. If it was just a matter of size all the skill, fun, and creativity would be gone.

 

[RTStork]

Sweet!

 

[blk mk8]

all things being equal the more cubes or CFM the more power but most people dont really now what they are doing so they is why a 302 can beat a bigger motor as well as other sistuations.

 

[2001ExpSport]

Reality Check

Stock 2000 Limited V8
SAE Net Horsepower 215 @ 4200
SAE Net Torque (lb ft) 288 @ 3300

XP8(2000)
Net Horsepower 222
Net Torque 298 lbs.-ft.

For the money it is a big waste. The added ground effects package increases weight which cancels out most of the 7 HP gain. Basically for 40 grand you get a limited with cobra rims and better handling. Oh ya, and some stickers.


SALEEN EXPLORER AWD 5.0 V8
1/4 mile-16.9/82
0-60-8.8 sec

$40,799

JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE LTD 5.2 V-8
1/4 mile-16.3/83
0-60-8.2 sec

$39,400

Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 V-8
1/4 mile-N/A
0-60-7.3 sec

$38,900


On another note, more cubes, more power, less cubes, more stuff you have to buy to get power.

 

[ChuckyD]

2001expsport... if your theory is correct about the cubes and power... explain this:

Honda S2000

Engine: 2.0-liter L4, 16 valve
Horsepower: 240 @ 8300
Torque: 153 @ 7500
Acceleration:0-60 mph in 6.8 sec. 1/4-mile in 15.0 sec.
Top Speed:145 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 110 ft.
Road Holding: 0.87 g.


Mustang


Engine: 4.6-liter V8, 16 valve
Horsepower: 260 @ 5250
Torque: 302 @ 4000
Acceleration:0-60 mph in 7.2 sec. 1/4-mile in 15.0 sec.
Top Speed:132 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 132 ft.
Road Holding: 0.85 g.

In many cases, Cubes do give you more power, but wheres the spead increase you should be getting with the cubes. Mustang should deff blow the honda s200 out of the water, according to your theory, what happened there? Theres not even a turbo or SC on it. Back in the day, as someone mentioned above, cubes where a huge issue, BUT Times have changed...

 

[Jason_25]

2001ExpSport, that is the Saleen explorer WITHOUT the supercharging option. The SC one has more like 300 HP I beleive.

 

[ChuckyD]

Here We GO!!!




The Saleen Explorer XP8 offers a standard 5.0 Liter V8 outputting 222 HP and 298 lbs.-ft of torque. Also available is a supercharger package producing 286 HP and 333 lbs.-ft of torque

Explorer XP8
16.9/82
8.8 0-60
.80g
135 Braking

Explorer XP8 Supercharged
15.3/88
7.9 0-60
.80g <<< Beats most cars, not to mention pretty much all SUV's
135 Braking

Starting at 36,000

 

[2001ExpSport]

Originally posted by Jason_25
2001ExpSport, that is the Saleen explorer WITHOUT the supercharging option. The SC one has more like 300 HP I beleive.

Ah, well then that's a little more worth it then. I didn't see that option.