What does it take to get 300whp?

[fthistruck]

I don't understand why this guy asks what it takes to get to 300hp and we have 3 pages of boomers arguing over literal bullshit.

Sponsored

 

[OWP]

I don't understand why this guy asks what it takes to get to 300hp and we have 3 pages of boomers arguing over literal bullshit.

I'm in my mid 50s, does that make me a boomer?
I'm in the group who wants the guy to get all the HP he wants.

I've been on a lot of forums, my main one is for old Dodge B bodies, so talk about an older group, but they are better behaved than this place.
THIS forum is the worst with people who see a question on how to do something, or someone shows something that they already did (a mod or just friggin ceramic coating), and then there are a ton of responses about how the person should not do that, or how its a waste of money etc.

If its a post where someone actually asks "Hey what do you think of this thing I did?" then its a free for all, but if someone asked HOW and you just don't like the idea then move on. Not every opinion needs to be shared. If you think its a terrible idea be considerate and start your own thread, you can even mention what thread inspired it, and have a discussion on the merits (or lack) of the mod there.

 

[Timothyd]

Some people just don't care about MPG.
To a degree, I do watch the MPG but if the need arises - I let the horses out.

 

[OWP]

We like to argue Millennial!

 

[Timothyd]

Some people just don't care about MPG.
To a degree, I do watch the MPG but if the need arises - I let the horses out.

I understand but, in my opinion, different tools for different for different "needs". You're right, sometimes I just have to let go and then I take the motorcycle or the sports car and let loose. My Mav is the right tool for moving stuff, commuting and general transportation. It does okay, I've had vehicles with less power. On the other hand my 51mpg for the 38 mile errand trip in the rain today was a high performance statement too.

 

[OWP]

If I want to have "fun" I take the Mustang out. It is built for speed and sucks at economy. But then again I'm not one to buy a Corolla and try to turn it into a Porsche

Some people enjoy that aspect of it, tho. In my time (sounding like an old man here) in the mid 90s the Civic thing was really kicking off. Some of them were running respectable numbers for the time and were beating traditional muscle cars and new performance cars.

I get its not for everybody, but this thread is more like:

"Hey that's not my thing, you know what my thing is? Telling people what isn't my thing"

I'll stop now because while I'm standing up for the idea of modding this platform my posts aren't helping the OP achieve his goal

 

[dochawk]

I'm in my mid 50s, does that make me a boomer?

nope. 1942-1964 for the baby boom. I was born in the last couple of months of it, long after folks were returning from wr.

We like to argue Millennial!

I think that they are properly addressed as "snowflake . .. .

 

[The Macf]

Well this successfully derailed. A simple no would've sufficed.

 

[Escapologist]

Wife & I bought a 2022 Transit Connect with a normally aspirated 2.0 4-banger. It boasted 165 hp at something like 5500 rpm, I don't remember what the peak torque was but it didn't come in until 3000 or higher.
To get the van to move you had to get it into that peak torque zone and above 3500 - 4500. Best we ever did with it was 22 mpg city/urban and 26 on the open highway. When you came to a hill (like in Pa or W. Va you were close to 5 grand to try to keep up with traffic. The van weighed about the same as the Mav.
In contrast the '22 GTI I had would develop good torque at 1500 - 1800 rpm. 2.0 L I4, 240 hp & 7 speed trans similar to my LOBO. Average mpg was 33 - 37 and on several occasions 40 mpg. Granted the Mav weighs about 5-600 pounds more but what I discovered is by keeping rpm low and in the torque zone you could get good mileage. Around town driving I was shifting at 1800 to 2200 rpm.
So far the LOBO is delivering 25 - 28 mpg but I only have 600+ miles on it.

SO, one component of the mileage equation is to keep the rpm as low as possible with adequate torque. The 2.0 EB does this.
TORQUE WINS RACES, NOT HORSEPOWER - TORQUE = ACCELERATION, HORSEPOWER = TOP SPEED
This is especially true of the old large displacement engines from the 60's & 70's.

One thing I noticed is that the LOBO doesn't want to shift into 7th gear until around 50 mph. So a lot of my driving is in 6th gear at about 2-2500 rpm.

Now you got me curious if one of those SPI intakes would improve a transit, give it a long air path for more low down torque air momentum ram effect.

It does in general pay to know what your torque curve looks like. Typically your BSFC map has a peak efficiency island at about 80% torque peak, 30% load, so if you try to drive it "in the pocket" there you're getting the best amount of shove for your injector squirt. But that's a generalisation if you don't have a real BSFC map for the motor and wanna wing it.

The quandary of turbos is that you gain better BSFC from higher compression, but you shove the boost further up, so you need so much more pedal to access it. Plus not all knock sensors are super trustable so nobody going to want to be too near the leaner mix or most advanced timing to take advantage. But really for the economy benefits you need to undersize the turbo a bit so you've got it sooner.

But to a point efficiency gains are performance gains and sometimes vice versa. Not sure if these motors for example would benefit both ways from things like oil windage control with crank scrapers. In motors where crank is kinda wide open to the pan without a windage tray or baffles, you can get 2-5 "free" HP back.

But anyway, whole drivetrain swaps or mix and match component donors to ponder...
Focus ST
Lincoln Nautilus/Ford Edge.

Though there's probably something "in" the stock parts, they're mass produced in the most economical fashion, that means they can vary from ideal quite a bit and be massaged more toward it. Have seen some improbable sounding shit, like stacking gaskets to radius a turn out of the throttle body better, get dyno confirmed gains.

 

[Timothyd]

Wife & I bought a 2022 Transit Connect with a normally aspirated 2.0 4-banger. It boasted 165 hp at something like 5500 rpm, I don't remember what the peak torque was but it didn't come in until 3000 or higher.
To get the van to move you had to get it into that peak torque zone and above 3500 - 4500. Best we ever did with it was 22 mpg city/urban and 26 on the open highway. When you came to a hill (like in Pa or W. Va you were close to 5 grand to try to keep up with traffic. The van weighed about the same as the Mav.
In contrast the '22 GTI I had would develop good torque at 1500 - 1800 rpm. 2.0 L I4, 240 hp & 7 speed trans similar to my LOBO. Average mpg was 33 - 37 and on several occasions 40 mpg. Granted the Mav weighs about 5-600 pounds more but what I discovered is by keeping rpm low and in the torque zone you could get good mileage. Around town driving I was shifting at 1800 to 2200 rpm.
So far the LOBO is delivering 25 - 28 mpg but I only have 600+ miles on it.

SO, one component of the mileage equation is to keep the rpm as low as possible with adequate torque. The 2.0 EB does this.
TORQUE WINS RACES, NOT HORSEPOWER - TORQUE = ACCELERATION, HORSEPOWER = TOP SPEED
This is especially true of the old large displacement engines from the 60's & 70's.

One thing I noticed is that the LOBO doesn't want to shift into 7th gear until around 50 mph. So a lot of my driving is in 6th gear at about 2-2500 rpm.

Having the hybrid with no tachometer it's kind of a 'set it and forget it' kind of thing. Just easy on the throttle and that's it, the rest is up to the software. I do play the efficiency game on the bike though. If I keep it just above the "lugging" point (about 3200 rpm) I'll get over 70 mpg (my NC750 has a real time milage meter). All this is IF I can restrain myself.

 

[dochawk]

I am further into the middle of the dates. If you don't remember Johnson as president then you are a pup.

I recall the grownups being excited by the moon landing, but not the event itself. I do remember the '72 Election, and the 150 point headlines when Nixon resigned.

Well this successfully derailed. A simple no would've sufficed.

But where would the fun in that be?

 

[Snox801]

I spent 47 years in the industrial machinery manufacturing business. Every machine had minimum and maximum speed settings. The parts were designed to operate in those parameters with a small fudge factor. No manufacturer designs their product to operate at 20 to 50% over stated parameters if they did you would pay more for the product. I will repeat AGAIN you do what you want with yours and I will do what I want with mine but don;t complain when yours fails because you modified it.

Not quite how engines work. Once the internals are forged they are pretty tough and things like the turbo now become the cost factor and also limiting. Hence why ford puts different turbos on a lot of the same engines.
3.5 ecoboost in the truck has a lot less power than the same engine in the gt. With zero internal parts changed.

 

[Timothyd]

I spent 47 years in the industrial machinery manufacturing business. Every machine had minimum and maximum speed settings. The parts were designed to operate in those parameters with a small fudge factor. No manufacturer designs their product to operate at 20 to 50% over stated parameters if they did you would pay more for the product. I will repeat AGAIN you do what you want with yours and I will do what I want with mine but don;t complain when yours fails because you modified it.

Sure, I worked there too. Difference is that the industrial stuff is usually run closer to 100% all the time. Compared to the industrial machines cars are pretty light duty. Stop and go is usually the worst a car sees (and teenagers).

 

[Timothyd]

Not quite how engines work. Once the internals are forged they are pretty tough and things like the turbo now become the cost factor and also limiting. Hence why ford puts different turbos on a lot of the same engines.
3.5 ecoboost in the truck has a lot less power than the same engine in the gt. With zero internal parts changed.

Yeah, swapping turbos and upping horsepower doesn't always have a happy ending. Plenty of evidence and recalls for that. Maintenance can be a big factor too.

 

[Buggy Man]

Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Audi, VW, etc. never designs an engine or transmission to handle 50% more than it was designed for. Exactly, machinery is run at near maximum all the time, 24/7. A automobile not so much and designed to handle speed limit running 100% of the time not maximum speed 100% of the time.

That makes sense but.........The VW GTI S model has 241 horsepower. That same engine, with modifications, puts out 315 HP in the AWD "R model.
Food for thought: Ford just spent a bunch of money upgrading the 2.0 EB engine. The '25 2.0 EB is a completely new design. Could it be that Ford is setting the stage for higher output versions of the 2.0? That would be nice.

Sponsored