More Power

[04MEMA]

A. I've heard about the upgrades available for the MM. The chip, the 4.11's and the Kenny Brown S. I'm looking for HP and torque charts from a chassis dyno run for:
1. a bone stock Marauder
2. Add the chip
3. Add the gears
4. any other mods that have been beneficial.

B. I'd also like to know if 0-60 and 1/4 mile times (and mph) are available for each of the above listed configurations.
I'd like to compare that to what the KB S is making. Just trying to get an idea of the botoom line benefits for each mod.

C. Also, is there any other companies who makes a stand alone supercharger for this car? I don't necessarily agree with KB that the stock MM can't handle all the extra power, what do you all think? I also don't like dumping another 50% of the cost of a Marauder just to get 50% more power. $48k can sure buy alot of car these days (used M5 or E55 anyone?).

D. And by the way, how quick will a KB S do 0 to 60mph, 0 to 100 mph, 1/4 mile (with mph), 70 to 0? Does anybody know?

Thanks!

[jefferson-mo]

I'm taking my bone stock MM to the Dyno Shop in Santee, CA next Saturday Feb 8th for a dyno run...........

I'll post the results when I get home in the afternoon.....

I plan on doin' the mods you say not too long afterward...............:banan a2:

[04MEMA]

Thanks, and I'll be looking forward to seeing the results. Have you taken your MM to the track yet for baseline numbers?

[Mike M]

I have my dyno results posted somewhere in here. The chip was worth 15.7 HP at the rear wheels. I dynoed with and without the chip.
I will test at Raceway Park once they open next month and then I will install the 4:11s and then race it again. Then I do the nitrous (80hp kit) and will race it again. The nitrous will give 80hp and I'm guess will be about $600.00...not to bad compared with a supercharger.

[Mike M]

I found my earlier post...
Just got back from doing 4 dyno pulls. I will scan and post them soon.
With no chip 249.5 hp and 278.6 Tq

With Reinhart chip 264.7 hp and 296.2Tq

15.2 extra HP and 17.6 extra Tq

Mike

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Mike Mielnicki

With Reinhart chip 264.7 hp and 296.2Tq


Nice.

Couple of questions:

1) I understand the stock MM has issues when it comes to tire-spinning launches without revving the engine up against the converter, or possibly even having to initiate a little "burnout" first. I understand the chip does provide a little low end boost... does this improve the launch to the point of tire-spinning?

2) I understand the chip provides improvements across the board, not just at WOT. Are these improvements very noticeable or do you have to really be familiar with the car before you notice light- and part-throttle improvements? In other words, could I hop into a chipped MM from a stock MM and drive sedately and go "WOW, this one is really different"?

3) Has someone computed mileage differences between a stock MM and a chipped one? Fuel mileage is a great concern for me, with our gas prices here in Quebec.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

[SergntMac]

Oh jeeze...one question at a time, eh guys?

I've had two dyno tests to date, sadly, both after my mods (see signature). Why two? There are a few styles of dynos out there, and they produce different results. The two style I found local are an "eddy-current" style (Mustang) that drives the rear wheels against a friction loaded drum, and the DynapPack style that removes the rear tires and mounts directly to the axel. Do a little background before deciding which style is best for you.

Overall, my mustang dyno was came to be disappointing, because after five pulls, we had to average five sets of data, poor consistency between pulls. My DynaPack was more accurate, with three almost identical pulls, more was not necessary. As you can read in my signature, I have a base line to work from now. I only wish I ran a 1/4 mile time pull, maybe next time?

The dyno experience is a good thing to do, if you are concerned about performance. I don't like the idea of new owners running up on the highway just to see the top end on the speedo. There's really no room around here where I can do this safely, and accurately. But, on a dyno, one can play.

I haven't had the opportunity to scan my graphs for posting here, I will soon. Like I said, I have only moderate mods to my MM, and highly productive they have been. There is more power ahead and I'm taking one step at a time. With regards to other questions about more intricate mods, KB's S package seems pricey, but read the details. Lots of suspension and brake stuff in there too. I'm sure you can blow power for less, but remember your handling features at speed, and the ability to stop. KB has a nice, well tuned turn key approach.

Can't cover all the questions in one post, more later if you need it.

[smith5365]

Interesting news about new F-150 in my local paper this morning mentions the heads of the 5.4 liter engine in the new F-150 will fit the 4.6 liter. The article says the new heads bumped the 5.4 liter from 260 to 300 hp and have three values per cylinder instead of two. INTERESTING!!

[Reaper948]

Originally posted by Mike Mielnicki
I have my dyno results posted somewhere in here. The chip was worth 15.7 HP at the rear wheels. I dynoed with and without the chip.
I will test at Raceway Park once they open next month and then I will install the 4:11s and then race it again. Then I do the nitrous (80hp kit) and will race it again. The nitrous will give 80hp and I'm guess will be about $600.00...not to bad compared with a supercharger.

Sorry im not familiar with nitrous.....but dont you need a very very modified engine so that it doesnt blow up when u inject nitrous?

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by Reaper948
Sorry im not familiar with nitrous.....but dont you need a very very modified engine so that it doesnt blow up when u inject nitrous?

No...small levels of nitrous injection, used sparingly, are OK, although I doubt you'll get ANYONE to honor a warranty, no matter how "mod friendly" they are....on the other hand, if you "drive it like you stole it", or like those idiots on "Wildest Police Chases", then you're asking for trouble.

Ideally, an engine should be built from the ground up for either nitrous or a blower for maximum longevity.

[RCSignals]

Originally posted by smith5365
Interesting news about new F-150 in my local paper this morning mentions the heads of the 5.4 liter engine in the new F-150 will fit the 4.6 liter. The article says the new heads bumped the 5.4 liter from 260 to 300 hp and have three values per cylinder instead of two. INTERESTING!!

I don't know if the 3 valve heads would perform better than the 4 valve heads on the Marauder.

It may be good news though for the SOHC two valve 4.6

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by smith5365
Interesting news about new F-150 in my local paper this morning mentions the heads of the 5.4 liter engine in the new F-150 will fit the 4.6 liter. The article says the new heads bumped the 5.4 liter from 260 to 300 hp and have three values per cylinder instead of two. INTERESTING!!

Local paper, eh? I like your neighborhood!

[Effster]

The four valve head will always be better.The forty horse upgrade is goin from 2 valve to 3.Now a 5.4 under the hood with 4 valve heads,,now were talking!

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Effster
The four valve head will always be better.The forty horse upgrade is goin from 2 valve to 3.Now a 5.4 under the hood with 4 valve heads,,now were talking!


I wondered about that as well, but it's most likely due to CAFE concerns. I was perusing the 2003 Ford catalog (Mercury cars are lumped together in Ford catalogs here in Canada) and noticed the power and torque figures for the 5.4l. I asked myself "why wouldn't someone take a hit top-end-wise in exchange for an enhanced low end?"... in other words, a more low-end torquey 260-280 hp might please more people than a mid-and-top-end 300+ hp with less low end, in a car like the Marauder. I thought about how the Impala SSs were in the 260hp range while a similar motor made 300+ in the F-bodies and Vette. I am guessing the bottom end was favored on the bigger heavier Impalas, at a sacrifice of top end.

Then I noticed the 5.4l was only used in trucks. Unless things have changed in recent years, trucks aren't subject to the same CAFE concerns as cars. So I'm guessing that's why the choice was made to go with a strong 4.6l instead of a grunty 5.4l. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean Ford can't work on a fatter 4.6l in search of more low end torque... provided they are committed to the platform. Has anyone heard any rumours of future enhancements? I initially heard of possible supercharging from the factory, but that was a long while back.

Funny to note that General Motors is proudly proclaiming how the new GTO will incur a gas-guzzler tax in order to provide power, while delivering it in a rather milquetoast package. Ford, on the other hand, is marketing a car that looks bad ass but appears to have sacrificed the low end grunt in search of a fuel-friendly setup.

[Effster]

Not having taken the engine apart yet,its hard to tell what wrong with it.Either the intake ports are too large or the cams are.Hence the 3500-6000 rpm range.My personal feeling is they would probaly be perfect on the bigger cubes of the 5.4

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Effster
Not having taken the engine apart yet,its hard to tell what wrong with it.Either the intake ports are too large or the cams are.Hence the 3500-6000 rpm range.My personal feeling is they would probaly be perfect on the bigger cubes of the 5.4


Well, horsepower is not really something you explicitly feel as part of the driving experience. Torque is what you really feel. High horsepower just means you're making torque at higher engine speeds, and hence producing more 'work' (ie. you've expended effort over a larger distance, or in this case more engine revolutions). FWIW, the formula is hp=torque*RPM/5252 (which explains why the torque and hp curves ALWAYS intersect at 5252 RPM).

That being said, you can usually get a good idea of an engine's power band by laying out a torque versus RPM curve. You can get the torque at the hp peak by plugging the numbers into the above formula and reverse-engineering (ie. torque=hp*5252/RPM ) and plot that point. Then you can place the point you already know - the torque peak at the given RPM. Then you can draw a line between these two points, and make sure the value at 5252 RPM doesn't exceed either the peak torque or the peak hp values (otherwise the peak would be at THAT speed instead!). That gives you a rough idea of the power curve.

However, below the torque peak (usually the lower speed between the two rated values), it's hard to know how to plot the curve. Usually, an engine with a torque peak at a fairly high RPM (closer to the hp peak) will mean it's sacrificed something down low (relatively speaking).

DOHC engines usually have emphasis on midrange to high RPM power delivery, which results in continued torque production at higher RPMs and therefore a higher hp value. When I saw the RPM at which the hp and torque peaks were rated for the 4.6l DOHC, I knew right away what to expect. The smallish size of the V8 (probably from a smaller stroke dimension) means less friction (the piston has to travel less distance per stroke) but that sacrifices torque about the crankshaft (torque = force*distance from a rotating point). So a given combustive force applied to a short-stroke motor yields less torque than one with a longer crank stroke.

But the tradeoff is more efficiency and less losses at high piston speeds. That means the engine, if properly designed, can keep producing the lesser torque but for much longer as the RPM increases. The formula up above yields the high hp numbers, since the torque is still fairly strong at such an elevated engine speed.

Similarly, port size and length on the intake side can affect power production. Short and wide ports can result in low intake air speed at low engine speeds, but less restriction at the top end. By the same token, a long tuned intake will produce a sort of supercharging effect at low speeds, but will choke the engine at high speeds, as if it was trying to breathe through a straw
.
So if someone was to try to stifle the top-end performance on an engine in an attempt to beef up the low end, there would be some serious design considerations to keep in mind, otherwise you might end up killing the top end while searching for a low-end that just can't realistically be produced.

[Effster]

Dude,,for whats its worth...I build high performance engines for a living,,having done so for the last 20 years.I know all the formulas.The heads or cams are too big,,hence the upper power range.I just stated a fact that they would probaly be better off on the bigger cube bottom end.

[smith5365]

Effster: So if I use stroker kit in the 4.6, which heads should work the best?

[Effster]

Smith,,i have not taken the engine apart yet to see how big everything really is.Many guys have been playing with the 4.6 for some time now.Whenever you make the engine bigger,,its needs more airflow from the intake tract and or camshafts.Being as this engine has a 3500-6000rpmrange,with little to no guts on the bottom end leads me to believe they are too big.The hot setup would be to put the 5.4under these heads and cam,,and boy oh boy,,would it be an animal.Remember,,this 4.6 is only 280 inches.This is also why the car needs the 4.10 gear,because the engine in enemic in the lower rpm range.

[smith5365]

Understood. My problem is CA Smog rules. I need to be "stealthy" about what I do; nothing obvious. I really understand your thoughts. My '89 GM has 5.0 which I've "upgraded" with CARB approved parts. Canadian version came with 5.4 for that era, and I'm barely ahead of what that engine did for the car. Always wanted to buy a used Canadian and see if I could import it, but never could get SoCAL AAA to tell me it could be done. Looks like I'll have to look for Mustang CARB approved upgrades and copy them to stay legal. I'm still hoping to do more.

[WolfeBros]

Those heads sound suspiciously like the ones LM developed for the Navigator a few years back. The F-150 5.4 was rated at 260 hp and then LM came along with the same engine in a different platform with newer heads and got 300 hp for the Navigator with basically no other mods. I have owned both vehicles. The truck and the Navigator. Those extra 40 horses were needed in that big Navigator.

[SergntMac]

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Effster
Dude,,for whats its worth...I build high performance engines for a living,,having done so for the last 20 years.I know all the formulas.The heads or cams are too big,,hence the upper power range.I just stated a fact that they would probaly be better off on the bigger cube bottom end.


I don't know if you took my post as condescending, but first of all, I don't know you, I don't know what you do for a living and I'm not about to come in here and start talking down to anyone. I apologize if you took it that way, but that just wasn't the case.

We cool?

[Effster]

No insult taken.Its just my gut feeling that the heads are on the large side.A 5.4 underneath them would surely be quite the combination I feel.We cool.No need to apologoize bud,,, :>)

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Effster
No insult taken.Its just my gut feeling that the heads are on the large side.A 5.4 underneath them would surely be quite the combination I feel.We cool.No need to apologoize bud,,, :>)


Great, I'm relieved to read that. It's so easy to misunderstand emotions when reading something that's been typed. Emoticons help but I'm new to this web-based stuff. I'm a veteran of email-lists though, and have seen lots of flame wars spring up needlessly just because of a misunderstanding.

I agree with you about the heads thing, just looking at pictures of the engine I marvelled at how gorgeously HUGE they looked. This is most likely due to the overhead cams, but I agree the ports must be pretty big too. It's the Boss 429 syndrome all over again. ;)

Here's a general question for you... if the ports were too big for the engine, wouldn't it kill throttle response along with low end torque, due to low mixture velocity at low RPM? I thought the throttle response was fairly crisp during my test drive, and hence figured the soft low end was more of a bore/stroke thing, along with the smallish total displacement.

How does the 5.4l measure in comparison to the 4.6l, bore/stroke-wise?

[SaxGuy]

I actually have a question about the Marauder engine. Ive heard a lot of people at local shops quoting that the marauder engine is actually the same engine used in the cobra mustang. Is this true???? If this is, is it the same engine used in the 2003 cobra, cause if thats so there are quite a few parts available for it. I hope this isn't a silly question!!!!lol

[Effster]

Saxguy,,you are correct.Triple,,you can overcome big ports/cams to a certain degree with the fuel injection timing tables to make it more "driveable".Yes just like the 429 cobra,351 boss secnario all over again.But the flip side of the coin is that the heads/cam would be fine for larger displacement future upgrades.

[SaxGuy]

So this is the same engine that is found in the 2003 Mustang Cobra? Then technically cant we install the supercharger that the 2003 comes with and boost HP up to 390+? Heres a link for the supercharger part off of EBAY.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2401729843&category=33741

[FordNut]

SaxGuy,
The MM engine is basically the same as the 2003 Cobra but actually more resembles the 2002 Cobra. The 2003 Cobra got several internal upgrades to the engine so it could stand up to the additional power obtained from the supercharger. The non-supercharged (non-Cobra) 4V engines didn't get these upgrades. The cams are also different on the MM for more torque, helpful in getting a 4200 lb car moving. A major difference is the air intake tube location. The MM is on the driver's side while the 'stang is on the passenger's side, so the Cobra supercharger won't just bolt right up.

[SaxGuy]

I think the 2003 supercharged Cobra engine would of been awesome inside of the Mercury Marauder. It's actually a shame that SVT doesn't offer a program for Mercury.

[gonzo50]

I thought that the 2003 Cobra has an Iron block so it can take the extremes of the Supercharger and the block in the non supercharged version as in the Marauder is aluminum, is this right?

[FordNut]

Not sure if it's an iron block or if it just has extra reinforcement in the webbing around the main journals. I believe the rods are stronger and the pistons are forged instead of hypereutectic. Anybody else got anything?

[Bob Mathis]

The 2003 Corbra is an iron block and the MM are aluminum.and I think there is some inside parts that may be different too.

[Sidney]

Motor Trend said that Ford destroyed a bunch of aluminum block during testing. That is why the had to swallow the extra weight for durability.

[RF Overlord]

This is what Ford did to the 3.8L in my T-bird to make it an SC:

http://www.sccoa.com/articles/everwonder.php

[Sidney]

They also said that it had better breathing heads. The heads are still aluminum. If I am correct, I think they are off the Navigators 5.4. Since the 5.4 is a stroked 4.6. It also has same crank, tougher Manley connecting rods, and redesigned pistons.

[Beadhead]

For what its worth (and that's probably not much), my '99 Cobra has a higher redline and revs WAY faster than the MM.

[LincMercLover]

Our MM's have Roush intakes I thought? So this would NOT make it identical to any Cobra motor, as those intakes are SVT (hints the differing HP/Torque numbers). Bolting up a blower would not be possible with the stock intake...