Taurus Car Club of America : Ford Taurus Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The '95 SHO automatic put down 177 fwhp and 174 fwtq.

I didn't run my 3.8L '95 SE, but I did run my Thunderbird SC and ended up blowing the rings on the last run :angry:

It still runs but I used a quart of oil during the 20 mile trip home.

I have videos, but have to convert them yet..

Jeramie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
Sorry I missed you at the dyno. I had to leave at about 2. I ran the Sable, and the results were low, as I expected. I'll post them after I have a chance to digitize B)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
That sucks man, did you at least break your last record on the run? It would suck to hurt the motor without at least having something to brag about.


Looks like we'll both be working on our engines here soon, maybe thats the punishment for not running the Taurus :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
I read through so fast the first time I missed the bit about the rings! Sorry about the meltdown :( Here's my freaky results. They are both low, compared to other similar cars, plus you notice about a 10% difference from the worst to best runs for both HP and torque. It's a mystery. . .
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Did they log the A/F ratio during those runs?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
DMX, no I didn't break any numbers because I was running the stock pulley (only about 9spi boost) I made 314.6 rwhp and 356.8 rwtq.

My best run was with about 14psi boost, I got 330.5 rwhp and 402.8 rwtq, but that was last year before I added the headers..

Most importantly, since my SC is a 5 speed, I started the dyno pull at low rpm, where it made an amazing 270 rwtq at only 1.500 rpm.. I'l have to scan the dyno chart, the torque curve and power curve are picture perfect. Power climbs very smooth, and the torque is just kinda always there, nice n flat!

And the SC is ok for now, as long as I keep out of boost at high rpms. It didn't like being revved to 6,500 rpm. The stock SC rings aren't really meant for those kind of combustion pressures anyway.. Remember my SC has a fully rebuilt bottom end, but it uses new stock parts. Me thinks some better forges pistons and some chromaly rings are in the future. It runs ok for now though, I just have to be easy on it. I drove it to the "All Ford Day" at Bandimere Speedway today, and had a blast.


Here's a pic of the freshly painted SC:

http://members.tccoa.com/92bird/sc1/newsc1.jpg' alt='' width='900' height='600' class='attach' />[/url]

Jeramie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I wish I had a SC 

...of course in addition to my SHO 
Well, I have the SC, a 95 Taurus SE, AND a '92 SHO... The sho has a spun rod bearing and we're gonna do a 3.2L swap this winter.

Jeramie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Bill, I heard that Sable was pretty impressive as far as sound goes.. Todd Jelle said it was louder than Ron's SHO.. We ended up meeting them at Red Robin for their lunch break, then went to the dyno after that.

Just to clarify, the '95 SHO that was run was my friend Ron's SHO, which was the red one we bought wrecked and fixed up.

Jeramie
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
Originally posted by DeltarMN@Jun 27 2004, 11:23 PM
Hey SableOHC your engin is stock right?  and the 005 run is yours right?  if so it looks right on target for a stock tec.  the 001 run you did was your engin warm from the drive there?  I did 100mph highway run once to get to a dyno on time and we dynoed it and it made 10 hp less then when the engin is not really hot.
The engine is stock except for the 75mm MAF (calibrated for the engine) and the "filter on a stick". Both runs are mine. The curious thing is, check out the times of the runs. The higher power run is the fifth one when the engine is the hottest. The lowest is the first one after it had sat in line at the dyno for four hours.

I didn't post the A/F graph, since it shows the mixture is dead on for the entire run.

Mike, do you have a dyno sheet from before you did the exhaust and chip? I was looking at the sheets that D Man posted before and after chip. His had quite a bit more before power than mine.

Jeramie, it is quite loud with the cone filter. It may not be a great hp modification, but it sure is a good acoustic one ;) I need to finish piping that thing into the fenderwell.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
Originally posted by 95SE@Jun 28 2004, 12:10 AM
DMX, no I didn't break any numbers because I was running the stock pulley (only about 9spi boost) I made 314.6 rwhp and 356.8 rwtq.

My best run was with about 14psi boost, I got 330.5 rwhp and 402.8 rwtq, but that was last year before I added the headers..

Most importantly, since my SC is a 5 speed, I started the dyno pull at low rpm, where it made an amazing 270 rwtq at only 1.500 rpm.. I'l have to scan the dyno chart, the torque curve and power curve are picture perfect. Power climbs very smooth, and the torque is just kinda always there, nice n flat!

And the SC is ok for now, as long as I keep out of boost at high rpms. It didn't like being revved to 6,500 rpm. The stock SC rings aren't really meant for those kind of combustion pressures anyway.. Remember my SC has a fully rebuilt bottom end, but it uses new stock parts. Me thinks some better forges pistons and some chromaly rings are in the future. It runs ok for now though, I just have to be easy on it. I drove it to the "All Ford Day" at Bandimere Speedway today, and had a blast.


Here's a pic of the freshly painted SC:

http://members.tccoa.com/92bird/sc1/newsc1.jpg' alt='' width='900' height='600' class='attach' />[/url]

Jeramie [/b][/quote]
WOW thats still VERY impressive, I can only hope to come near that someday. Starting your pulls down low huh :-) I'll do the same through the eec tuner (set it to shift into 3rd by20 miles per hour or something and NOT kick down) so I too can get a nice long run in.

I thought you shifted at 6100 like in that 0-60 video you showed a while back, were you still making power up at 6500?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Craig, the power sucked at 6,500 and I will never rev the engine up that high again. This engine makes so much torque that I really should never have to rev much past 5,300 rpm or so..

I love torque.. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
548 Posts
Originally posted by 95SE@Jun 29 2004, 12:29 AM
Craig, the power sucked at 6,500 and I will never rev the engine up that high again. This engine makes so much torque that I really should never have to rev much past 5,300 rpm or so..

I love torque.. :)
Word!


Grunt > Revs anyday in my book :D


I forget, did you have one of those sweet magnaport blowers ? I'm hoping to sell this early model one through ebay and pick up a 94/95 before the year is over. I was a little worried about overboosting, then I remembered the 3% underdrive on them that makes the same boost as before....so i should make maybe only 3% more boost. (hoping i'm not oversimplifying that)


Edit: And before I forget...bring on the vids you took, I love that blower whine. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
My stock Duratec put down 147hp/160tq and it ran 16.1's all day @ 86-87mph, so I'd say you're right where you should be OHC. B)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
Joe, thanks for the data :D If it ran like the good run all the time it might be OK, but it doesn't. When we ran it at the strip at RotB we couldn't get better than 17.2.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
615 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Craig, I have some kick ass videos but I can't get my stupid capture card to work.. GRRRRR.. I'l let you know when they are up..

The SHO sounds pretty sweet at 7,200 rpm!

J-
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Originally posted by SableOHC@Jun 29 2004, 08:51 AM
Joe, thanks for the data :D If it ran like the good run all the time it might be OK, but it doesn't. When we ran it at the strip at RotB we couldn't get better than 17.2.
Yeah you definitely should be faster than that, even in the heat. Sounds like a flaky IMRC to me, but thats just a guess.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top