The Fastest N/A 4.0 Explorer

[AiwaExplorer]

Well I do use a superchip now.....Yeah I agree on the weight thing....Maybe I Should diet...seeing how me alone is 300 lbs in the damn car! and then the sound system probably isnt helping.....What yr or SUV Or what ever I can find a 4.10's in? I am 2wd and I dont think I need a locker...im not really having problems with traction....I have monoleafs that are saggin beyond all belief....but im afraid of upgrading as my weight transfers really makes the back monoleaf dip coming off the line and I think That is hte reason for my good traction? agree or disgree? should I upgrade to new mono's or maybe even 4dr leaf pack? also...Will the black magic 150 electric fan do the trick?

 

[Ronin8002]

The FLX-150 or FLX-180 are both good electric fans to use. I think the FLX-180 is supposed to be much quieter but as far as cooling ability both of them are pretty much equal, especially for a mostly stock motor. I have the black magic 150 (flx-150) fan and it works fine and it does help a bit in the power department. Not sure on the TB or gears but I beleive your MAS is big enough for what your plans are.

 

[jah81592]

My Ex went 9.67 in the 1/8th, 14.87 in the 1/4. This with headers,t/b,76mm C&L,MAC catback and CAI.

 

[jah81592]

At some point with raising the compression, depending on how much you raise it, drivability is going to be affected because you are going to exceed the knock resistance of 93 octane. Which means you either have to run race gas (not streetable and not worth it on a daily driver) or retard the timing so much that you cancel out whatever gains you might have made with the compression increase.

Think about this, the SOHC already has 9.7:1 compression. You probably aren't going to be able to kick the compression up too much more before you start having the issues I mentioned above. Even without those issues, raising the compression eventually starts to fall into the category of diminishing returns when you rely on that as your sole means of increasing power, i.e. the percentage of power you gain by increasing the compression goes down lower and lower as you raise compression. Headgasket sealing might become a problem with high compression as well, even if you can get past the knock issue.

I suppose water/methanol injection could be used to suppress the knocking...I know it's been tried on N/A engines but not sure how successfully. That would allow you to bump up compression and use pump gas while keeping your timing advanced. Might be worth looking into if you're dead set on the N/A route. Try www.snowperformance.net or www.waterinjection.info for good info on that.

I disagree with your statement on the lack of torque for the N/A 4.0L SOHC. I have had the ohv and the sohc and the sohc is a hell of a lot better in torque production than the ohv.. My ohv would outjump my sohc in the first 20' then bye bye aenemic ohv. As far as the sohc and the v-8 it is a drivers race stock

 

[rocket 5979]

My Ex went 9.67 in the 1/8th, 15.09 in the 1/4. This with headers,t/b,76mm C&L,MAC catback and CAI.

Holy **** I didn't know you had your 4.0 Sport that fast while still N/A. Wow, that is better than I thought anyone on here would get. N/A is good stuff and all but F/I in modern day cars is the way to go if you want some big power. The only N/A project I have done is on my Lincoln LS right now. Still trying to bust into the 13.9's with it. If I can do that I know I will have pretty much the fastest N/A stock engined LS in the country. Records are fun.

 

[Ronin8002]

I disagree with your statement on the lack of torque for the N/A 4.0L SOHC. I have had the ohv and the sohc and the sohc is a hell of a lot better in torque production than the ohv.. My ohv would outjump my sohc in the first 20' then bye bye aenemic ohv.

I never said the SOHC lacked torque....I said it makes good torque when you rev it. What I was saying in that post is, generally, to make any 4.0l Explorer faster, you have to increase the overall torque and the RPM range over which that torque is present. Which is pretty much true with anything else but for Explorers going for more torque is especially important because of the vehicle weight.

I agree with you that the SOHC does outperform the OHV in torque overall.

 

[jah81592]

I never said the SOHC lacked torque....I said it makes good torque when you rev it. What I was saying in that post is, generally, to make any 4.0l Explorer faster, you have to increase the overall torque and the RPM range over which that torque is present. Which is pretty much true with anything else but for Explorers going for more torque is especially important because of the vehicle weight.

I agree with you that the SOHC does outperform the OHV in torque overall.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, just strange wording in your previous post.

 

[spindlecone]

And this is what the SOHC V6 is capable of doing N/A,RWHP and TQ

 

[rocket 5979]

And this is what the SOHC V6 is capable of doing N/A,RWHP and TQ

Not bad at all. Hey Spindle, is that with all the bolt-ons available for the V6 or is there still room to grow left before having to go with bigger mods?


Just curious and in no way trying to flame, but why aren't your torque and horsepower curves crossing at 5,250 rpms?

 

[Ronin8002]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, just strange wording in your previous post.

No worries, I should have gotten to the point instead of rambling like I tend to do

Little off topic, jah81592, but how is that front mount intercooler working for you? Are you still using the water/methanol injection?

 

[jah81592]

No worries, I should have gotten to the point instead of rambling like I tend to do

Little off topic, jah81592, but how is that front mount intercooler working for you? Are you still using the water/methanol injection?

Intercooler is working great and I am using the intercooler with the meth injection as well.

 

[BeauJ]

Just curious and in no way trying to flame, but why aren't your torque and horsepower curves crossing at 5,250 rpms?

Someone got all in depth about this in another thread, but it's due to the type of dyno they use.

 

[rocket 5979]

Someone got all in depth about this in another thread, but it's due to the type of dyno they use.

It cannot be the type of dyno they use because the dyno only measures one thing and then uses an equation to figure the other. If a dyno graph does not cross at 5250 rpms then something it out of whack and the numbers cannot be trusted. I am not saying Spindle's truck isn't capable of making those numbers, because I bet it can, but that dyno graph is messed up.

The equation is as follows:

RPM x torque/ 5252 = HP

Their math was off or something when their software graphed that line. Another giveaway that the dyno facilities math was botched is that the torque and horsepower lines or only supposed to cross once. They cross twice in that graph. Spindle I don't know who you went to to get your dyno done, but they screwed something up. Its cool though, **** happens.

 

[aldive]

but that dyno graph is messed up.

I concur.

What correction was used? Its not indicated.

 

[rocket 5979]

I concur.

What correction was used? Its not indicated.

It is not even about the correction, it is about the actual torque converting to horsepower formula that was off. Not the correction of SAE, STD, or RAW.

 

[rocket 5979]

I know why the lines aren't corresponding! The damn idiots used the type of graph that plots the left side with horsepower numbers and the right with torque! That is an old way to graph the numbers, and is exactly why the sheet doesn't appear to be correct. I still wonder why the dyno sheet started at 4,000 or so RPMs and had such a high spike there. Unless it was where the truck shifted to 4th gear at? Man that sucks, as tuners they should have temporarily locked Spindle's 4th gear so that he could dyno with 4th without the tranny downshifting to 3rd once he floored it in 4th. It sure is fun figuring out why dyno sheets go the way they do! Either way that graphing method is the prime example why most tuners have switched to the method that plots torque and rpm on the same graph with matching index numbers on both sides for both measurements. It leads to less confusion.

Spindle's actual numbers, not counting the torque flare that most likely happened during the tranny shift, are around 220 rwhp and 190 rwtq. I would get more accurate but the picture of the sheet was from too far away so I couldn't line the numbers and lines up too precisely. Still not too bad for a V6!

 

[spindlecone]

I concur.

What correction was used? Its not indicated.

Correction for what Al.
This was not my trac, is a friend of mine.
Rockets correct I believe, all my graphs cross at 5250.
My trac and his are set up identicle with the exception that his has a stall convertor, he runs 30lb injectors (which most likly do's nothing for him)
He do's his own tuning with the SCT flasher, and he runs 103 octane gas.
As you can see it was done on a Dynojet, they correct for altitude, temp and humidity.

 

[spindlecone]

Rocket, being done as you posted above, do you think the final numbers are correct?

 

[rocket 5979]

Rocket, being done as you posted above, do you think the final numbers are correct?

Not the ones stated at the top of the page of the dyno sheet itself. The only reason is because it looks like they only showed the sheet from when they revved it when in 4th and dropped to 3rd and then right after the shift back to 4th again while WOT is when they started to record. But their recording already started before the shift was complete, thus you see a power flare from the next gear engaging. The graph after that shift flare is most likely pretty accurate, but the computer software looks at the total of all that is included in the graph, which did include the flare at the beginning.

Some places lock the 4th gear out and others don't. That is why Troll's video of his Explorer on the dyno showed his truck bucking when going into 4th gear. If his tuner had the graph turned on at that time then he would have seen a power spike too. Some tuners lock the autos out, and others just run it through and only record when it had finally hit 4th gear while WOT. The same power spike can also happen when the TC locks into 1:1 too.

 

[aldive]

Rocket, being done as you posted above, do you think the final numbers are correct?

What dyno facility did you use for the testing?