a little. Looks like the bar might have just raised been raised a few notches.

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/gallery.phtml?gk=62

Not bad for 281ci Anybody want to buy an R-Trim

 

I am not usually a mustang fan, but gosh that thing is bad ***! :hail:

 

T88's fit under the hood of thirdgens.

 

What does your car run in the 1/4? A centrifigally blown, AFR headed 406 shouldnt be too far off those kinda numbers in good tune.

 

If I ever slapped it on a dyno I'm sure the numbers would be no problem. BUT, he's is making those kind of numbers with a setup that is infinitely more streetable than mine, 125ci less displacement AND he can drive farther than across town without worrying about scheduling 'in-flight' refueling. Not to mention, A/C, cruise control, and pretty much a stock appearance. BTW, the dyno run Livernois shows is one of the first and was at 17# of boost. They also did 20 and 23#.

 

I would think you'd have the upper hand because of the extra displacement. throw a t88 upon yours and see some real tourqe numbers.

Sure is a hell of a lot of power outta that 4.6 though

 

he's doing 2.36hp and 2.58lb-ft of torque per cubic inch on a fully streetable car. To equal that my numbers would have to be 958hp and 1049lb-ft of torque. That's crazy. What is even crazier is the motor with the boost cranked up put down hp and torque #'s well into the 7xx/8xx range. All from a FULLY STREETABLE, fully optioned stock appearing car. No sloppy high stall convertors, no overheating in traffic, no overly lopey 'non-idle friendly' cam profiles, double digit gas mileage, AND it's quiet.

Yeah, a T88 will make a crap load of power but to quote a very well known turbo shop I've spoken with in the last 12 months...anyone running over a 76 on a car that is primarily a street car is just fooling themselves and wasting their money; a 72 would be ideal.

The brother used to be a Vortech boy and was the one that converted me from NAUS. Maybe it's time to get converted - again.

 

Just a theory regarding physics, but if you have the ability to push more exhaust gasses easier than a smaller engine could. You'd theoretically be able to spin a larger turbo better than said smaller engine. Also having the ability to flow more air(IE bigger cylinder, larger heads, etc.) at a lower rpm would give you the nod in longevity and barring something extraordinary more power at a given rpm. This is providing that the engine is set up to use it's ability to pump the extra air it's capable of.

Not downplaying any shop you've talked too nor your information, but many are using larger turbos than a t-76 and doing quite well. They're not just for Single turbo Supras anymore.

It's all about efficiency v/s weight. Goes back to the old airpump saying(no need to reiterate). If you could fill the cylinders of both engines to their max efficiency the larger the engine the more power potential it has. do some searching of the heirarchy of the FI boards here and you'll see what a 400+ cubic inch motor is capable of. Again not downplaying the accomplishment, but don't sell yourself short.......

 

At the same time, you have to keep in mind that a smaller displacement engine with a shorter stroke will have a powerband that is further up in the rpm range. I have no idea how to calculate it, but if you can spin an engine with 400ci of displacement safely to 6500 rpm and you can spin an engine with 327ci of displacement safely to 8000 rpm, you have to think about which would flow more exhaust at their peak rpms (granted that the 400 will probably flow more average exhaust gas throughout its powerband). I know that short stroke engines are popular with the power adder crowds.

 

I agree however for example the 400 ci engine flows 250 cfm at 2000rpm, 400@4000 rpm, 575cfm@ 5000rpm and 650@6500rpm.

Take the 327ci engine It flows 125cfm@2000 rpm, 275@4000,400cfm@5000rpm,525cfm@6500,650cfm@7200rpm,725@8200rpm.

Just for examples here, not taking into account stall points within the heads,the ability to turn such an rpm or artifically pressurizing the engine to reach 100% efficiency. Put both engines in the same car and see what happens.

Since the smaller engine will have a tougher time spinning either a larger turbine or compressor said compressor has to be smaller to be able to put the smaller engine into it's maximum airflow range as quickly as possible(revving ability). Use that same compressor/turbine on a larger ci engine and the airflow characteristics of the larger engine will spin that equipment quicker(IE instant boost/less lag). So the point in all my senseless ramblings is to either maximize the the cubic inches to flow push the largest turbine possible without adversely affecting power production or maximize the vehicle in which this engine sits.

Ex. The lighter the car the easier time the engine will have moving it. Take that smaller engine and pout it in a 5500lb. Catalina and see where those extra cubic inches comes in handy. Eventually you'll reach the capacity limit for a given cylinder(in a perfect world) would you rather have a larger cylinder or a smaller one. Power to weight doesn't float my boat. Look at some of the hondas and all the other 1.8L's some are well over 100hp per litre. Big accomplishment until you get to the point where having such a small cylinder is a hinderence and in turn to make the car quicker it must be lighter because the engine in question has reached it's max power level either by design(KABOOM) or
Airflow limit. MY analogy is like trying to put 2lbs. of meat in a 1 pound bag. Eventually it will not get any more full and will cause a restriction and not allow anything else to pass into it.





Just my opinion.