NA4LSOHCBUT [Not ANOTHER 4.0L SOHC Build Up Thread!]

[DLIDDYFL]

Okay, now that we have all that cleared up, I'll wait to see the converted track times and chasis dyno numbers. BTW, I have been reading the last 6 pages. What I was looking for was comparable information. That's all. I think it's safe to say that everyone in here expects a certian % in error on data regarding all hp and torque numbers, even track times for that matter. Even the most hp/torque can post crap time slips ie, traction issues, driver skill and reaction time, etc,etc. And that can even take into account sea level, temp, and weather conditions. So even track times are not a good measure unless we all go to the same track, and the same driver makes all the runs, and even then there is an error factor, although a much smaller one.
So Fredness, maybe until you get the correction factor, when you post data numbers you should use " " so we know when your talking theorhetical and actual. Because when I inquired about your 188 hp, Jakee came in and said you had corrected the data. I assumed you and him had exchanged IM info and worked it out already. Sorry for my confusion. The 188 hp number just kept throwing me off. 188 WRHP is to high a number, and 188 crank hp seems to low after figuring 15-20% loss, with exhuast, intake and tune.

 

[Jakee]

That's what the 0-60's were for, but I am waiting to hear back from the track about their test&tune nights (Currently only on Wednesday, a school night ), but that was for a later post...

Remember, I wouldn't have passed the Tech Inspection because I had a sheered wheel stud. Now that's fixed and the brakes are "seasoned".

Oh, BTW: What's up with you people and that "Quote" button :

Fred - You have a real problem with the quote button, don't you? It lets OTHERS know what they heck we're talking about.

Fred - You're doing alot better than I started off. You've got data, and that's more than I had so...If it's repeatable, then it should show gains. On the other hand, if people don't understand why the numbers are where they are, they more than likely won't trust the numbers, and I have a feeling that's starting to happen here.

It could be easy to get confused in here cuss unfortanatly, high HP means something to the majority. Actually, HIGH HP USUALLY translates to a faster vehicle. (Okay, I know I'm gonna get some responses on this one) Yes, HIGH HP and no torque curve is not good, but on the average...Maybe?

When people work there butts off to acheive a faster truck, and a new guy comes in and post a baseline that matches there (at the time current level) you can expect some questions to be asked. That's exactly why I started questions things. It didn't make sense to me so I started back from page 1 and read again. I understood what you were doing (but I did have to feel in blanks) so I tried not saying anything else. This is your thread.

 

[DLIDDYFL]

BTW, Jakee, you shouldn't feel in blanks.This is a public domain man, that's not right, what you do in your house is none of our business! LOL!

 

[Fredness]

High HP does translate to a faster vehcile, but not a quicker one. More torque will make a vehicle with factory gears quicker. There in lies some of the problems. I want to increase the torque - to make the vehicle more streetable, with that I should see a quicker vehicle.

If I wanted fast, it wouldn't be rolling on steelies and 32's! But you make some good points.

The only time I have an issue with the quote button is when people use it instead of the reply button, or they quote the entire post rather than the one sentence they are replying to, that's all.

 

[Jakee]

I'm about to have some headers made that will concentrate on the low-end and mid range torque.

 

[rocket 5979]

I'm about to have some headers made that will concentrate on the low-end and mid range torque.

Jake, I thought you had said you were planning to go turbo??? Headers???

 

[Jakee]

Opps - I forgot. I got carried away by someone wanting to build these for me and thought it would be a great thing....But not for a turbo.

 

[jah81592]

The AVERAGE 4.6 V8 makes 180ish HP stock, at the rear wheels.

You are very correct on this. I just added cold air,MAC catback,underdrive pulleys and tune on a 02 Explorer v-8. I made 215hp but 255torque from 1700 to 4900+ rpm. Table top flat. The dyno operator stated when we dynoed my estimated guess is 170ish hp. After the pull he said "what is done to this thing,damn look at the torque curve err... not a curve but torque flat."

Fred - You're doing alot better than I started off. You've got data, and that's more than I had so...If it's repeatable, then it should show gains. On the other hand, if people don't understand why the numbers are where they are, they more than likely won't trust the numbers, and I have a feeling that's starting to happen here.

Agreed +1,I am a custom tuner and understand the data but this thread has become too technically oriented just a sea of #'s. Most people in here are seeing Greek with all this logging. I haven't thought this much on my truck and up to this point has been the fastest 6 banger N/a'd & boosted. I lost interest after the first 2 pages.

 

[jah81592]

Okay, now that we have all that cleared up, I'll wait to see the converted track times and chasis dyno numbers. BTW, I have been reading the last 6 pages. What I was looking for was comparable information. That's all. I think it's safe to say that everyone in here expects a certian % in error on data regarding all hp and torque numbers, even track times for that matter. Even the most hp/torque can post crap time slips ie, traction issues, driver skill and reaction time, etc,etc. And that can even take into account sea level, temp, and weather conditions. So even track times are not a good measure unless we all go to the same track, and the same driver makes all the runs, and even then there is an error factor, although a much smaller one.
So Fredness, maybe until you get the correction factor, when you post data numbers you should use " " so we know when your talking theorhetical and actual. Because when I inquired about your 188 hp, Jakee came in and said you had corrected the data. I assumed you and him had exchanged IM info and worked it out already. Sorry for my confusion. The 188 hp number just kept throwing me off. 188 WRHP is to high a number, and 188 crank hp seems to low after figuring 15-20% loss, with exhuast, intake and tune.

Uncorrected hp #'s will always be higher. Most people use SAE as a standard. As far as track times being a good indicator of what your mods will do even if you get a sh**ty time you can still look at the mph and tell what your mods are doing for you. That is why I always go to the same track taking out any confusion.-James

 

[rocket 5979]

Uncorrected hp #'s will always be higher. Most people use SAE as a standard. As far as track times being a good indicator of what your mods will do even if you get a sh**ty time you can still look at the mph and tell what your mods are doing for you. That is why I always go to the same track taking out any confusion.-James

+1!!! Until you get booted from that track for not having a roll cage!

 

[Afboy143]

So yeah, what mods are done and such to the truck?

 

[Jakee]

Agreed +1,I am a custom tuner and understand the data but this thread has become too technically oriented just a sea of #'s. Most people in here are seeing Greek with all this logging. I haven't thought this much on my truck and up to this point has been the fastest 6 banger N/a'd & boosted. I lost interest after the first 2 pages.[/quote]


I hope to be the fastest N/A 4.0 SOHC sport that's black, and that only has one wheel turning, Explorer; EVER!

Kidding - But I do hope to re-write the N/A Explorer 4.0 Record.

 

[jah81592]

+1!!! Until you get booted from that track for not having a roll cage!

Rocket what are you saying? I am knocking on the door of "boot city" once I get my tranny done and up the boost? I guess I will just go in and make a pass and they will look real stupid that an Explorer just busted into the 11's and oh yeah! that guy has to leave!

 

[rocket 5979]

Rocket what are you saying? I am knocking on the door of "boot city" once I get my tranny done and up the boost? I guess I will just go in and make a pass and they will look real stupid that an Explorer just busted into the 11's and oh yeah! that guy has to leave!

I feel you there bro. It will be happening with me shortly too once the tuning hiccups are resolved with my X.

 

[Jakee]

Up the boost to 23 LBS. I can take it.

 

[rocket 5979]

Up the boost to 23 LBS. I can take it.

JAKE!!! WTF IS THIS BOOST CRAP!!!! Have you forgotten we do not measure in boost anymore on this site, we measure in % of crapton! Get with it! That looks like 69% of crapton or .7 crapton of boost rounded up.



















BTW, was that .7 crapton of boost comment meant for me or James? Don't tempt him, James is crazy enough I bet he would do it, "Just to see what it does". Hehehe.

 

[Jakee]

JAKE!!! WTF IS THIS BOOST CRAP!!!! Have you forgotten we do not measure in boost anymore on this site, we measure in % of crapton! Get with it! That looks like 69% of crapton or .7 crapton of boost rounded up.




Sorry - I'm still in the learning mode here. How about - turn the boost up until a piston melts, then back off by just a mini-turd?















BTW, was that .7 crapton of boost comment meant for me or James? Don't tempt him, James is crazy enough I bet he would do it, "Just to see what it does". Hehehe.

That was meant for James - And you guys are starting to talk my talk now! Screw the math, and logging, just do it and see what happens. Just have a daily driver handy.

You're already running waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay-a-bunch of boost, and I'm waiting to see some vids........

 

[rocket 5979]

That was meant for James - And you guys are starting to talk my talk now! Screw the math, and logging, just do it and see what happens. Just have a daily driver handy.

You're already running waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay-a-bunch of boost, and I'm waiting to see some vids........

"waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay-a-bunch"??? Never heard this term before, you're going to have to explain it to me. Any formula to convert to crapton??? I only think in units of craptons so I apologize if I do not understand. It is like how rednecks (and almost all other men) usually only think in units of beer.

 

[jah81592]

Did someone say beer? =:bdrunk:

 

[DLIDDYFL]

Hey everyone , theres a party goin on NA4LSOHCBUT !!!!!!!!!!