PDA

View Full Version : Hey CMac89... heres your 747!



Blown 91 Bird
11-10-2005, 06:15 PM
LOL. Heres a quick vid from when i had the old blower on my 94 GT... my buddy who was doing the video said it sounded like a 747 was taking off on the street :eek: Can kinda hear the blower screamin in the video.. but it was definetely alot louder in person!

http://s53.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0XW42V4JSSZUC0LFS83IDEPUVM

XR7 Dave
11-10-2005, 06:19 PM
LOL. Heres a quick vid from when i had the old blower on my 94 GT... my buddy who was doing the video said it sounded like a 747 was taking off on the street :eek: Can kinda hear the blower screamin in the video.. but it was definetely alot louder in person!

http://s53.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0XW42V4JSSZUC0LFS83IDEPUVM

pshaw, only 475rwhp? friggin weak for a V8.

Blown 91 Bird
11-10-2005, 06:21 PM
pshaw, only 475rwhp? friggin weak for a V8.

lol.. yep, only 476whp with a mild setup with a blower that most have a hard time making 400whp with ;)

now it makes close to 600whp.. but i agree, thats still weak for a v8!

CMac89
11-11-2005, 12:02 AM
That was cute, but wasn't no airplane...that was a weak Mustang...

Get a car with a motor that has good heads and you get this.... (http://video.ls1tech.com/Player.aspx?fileid=EE6298EF-00AF-4976-8DF3-A02240E6C71C&kw=51&p=2)

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 09:06 AM
that was a weak Mustang...


:rolleyes:
That was a weak Mustang huh? No, actually that was somone's hard earned effort that netted a power gain of nearly 300hp. LOL!
The firebird is impressive, but it damn sure has more displacement than a tiny 4.6L in comparison to a 5.7L. IT IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE MORE POWER!
Quit hating on Mustangs! Firebirds are nothing special. (Especially on a thunderbird forum.) :D :D :D
I think the Mustang was absolutely STUNNING for a 1994 and especially if it has stock heads! :eek: :eek: :eek:

CMac89
11-11-2005, 11:05 AM
The firebird is impressive, but it damn sure has more displacement than a tiny 4.6L in comparison to a 5.7L. IT IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE MORE POWER!
The most illegitimate, ignorant, uneducated hypothesis EVER about an ls1 vs 4.6 or any other motor comparison. (even though that mustang was was a 306.) Cheby's 4.8 liter truck motors mops up all 4.6's. I can guarantee that I could EASILY get a 4.8 out of a truck and build it to rape every NA 4.6. All they is are mini ls1's.

HEAD FLOW is the main reason for ls1 making more power/potential than a 4.6/5.0. If cubic inches is the reason for making all the difference in the horsepower then why do the little 4.0 liter honda v8's in the indy cars make 750hp? Why do the 455's in the 75-76 Trans Am's make 210hp? Why do 454's in motorhomes make 290?

You have to match the head flow with the cubic inches to cut cylinder head flow choke at low rpms to make the HP. And since GM likes to make heads that do this and Ford doesn't then GM takes the cookies. If the 4.6's heads flow around 240 or so they would make about the same HP/potential to a certain point and then it would matter to CI, but not at this low of HP ratings.

By the way, 306 from 346 cubic inches isn't enough to have a 400rwhp interval is it?

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 01:32 PM
you are also comparing my car which had a old technology blower that doesnt flow nearly the CFM that the turbo on that T/A does.

Like i said.. with my setup, i made the power most people with Paxton SN89/SN93/VR4's have a hard time making..on a stock tune with only 24* of total timing, on pumpgas. With more boost (which is when the VR4 actually wakes up)..im sure i could have dipped into the 500RWHP range. For only 8lbs of boost, the power produced was great..and the torque was even better. To boot my combo isnt really even a 'high power' making combo.. but it all works well together which is what building a motor to make good #'s is all about. (performer 6037 heads, performer RPM intake, f-cam at +2*).

posting that T/A vid was supose to put me down or something? If i post the vid of Dan Millen pegging the dyno making 1000+RWHP, it would show that the T/A didnt have nearly enough either to be a "747" :rolleyes:






just a question, but do YOU have a street car that makes 600+hp? :confused:

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 01:34 PM
Why do 454's in motorhomes make 290?

because they are torque motors. Have you ever seen the ports and chambers on a motorhome 454 head? You couldnt fit a golf ball in the ports!

CMac89
11-11-2005, 01:50 PM
because they are torque motors. Have you ever seen the ports and chambers on a motorhome 454 head? You couldnt fit a golf ball in the ports!
I know this, but it doesn't mean it's efficient. Obviously this was my point. The motorhome motors don't have good head flow, so it doesn't make much top end.

Whenever I said it was a weak Mustang I was playing jokes with you. :) I was just talking about 4.6 vs. ls1. Sorry if it came off of me the wrong way. :(

I drive the SuperStocker around and it makes about 720hp.

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 01:55 PM
I know this, but it doesn't mean it's efficient. Obviously this was my point. The motorhome motors don't have good head flow, so it doesn't make much top end.

Whenever I said it was a weak Mustang I was playing jokes with you. :) I was just talking about 4.6 vs. ls1. Sorry if it came off of me the wrong way. :(


actually the heads flow just fine..its just the port and chamber design which make the heads work for what they are intended to do..make lots of torque!



no problem man. I know today those #'s are weak.. but if you knew anything about the old school paxton blowers (SN89, SN93, SN95, SN2000, VR4) you'd know there arent many people going beyond the 400RWHP mark with them.. which i did by 70+hp with a combo that is very simple and cheap. I also didnt have a 'typical' centrif blower power curve either. I made 400+whp for over 2000rpm and made 500+tq which most dont do! That torque made for burnin the tires through 3rd gear on 315/35/17 DR's a breeze! Hell today with it making just about 600 to the wheels with the new blower (14psi) and small shot (50 shot) its still a bit weak to me.. but at that power level you rarely find something roaming the streets that will walk away from it with ease.

oldschoolmuscle
11-11-2005, 01:59 PM
kudo's for havin a mustang that can make decent power. cmac89 wasnt bashing you, i also get a little tired of the cid excuse, get a good set of heads and a custom ground blower cam not some abc cam from ford. and if your blower isnt up to par then go out and get a new one. I just about ready to build a 4.8 ls1 truck motor, instead of my 408. just to post every where that its possible to make awesome power with little cid, just look at 3liter v-10s in f1.

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 02:03 PM
The most illegitimate, ignorant, uneducated hypothesis EVER about an ls1 vs 4.6 or any other motor comparison.
HEAD FLOW is the main reason for ls1 making more power/potential than a 4.6/5.0.

I hope you don't believe this load of ****!! Fart and clear out your mind man! Ford could have easily made a mainstream engine to compete with anything Chevrolet can dream of with the 5.4L. ;) If i'm so wrong then why the hell dosn't chevy use the wimpy @$$ 4.8L engine in the Camaro's and Trans Ams????? :confused: :confused: :confused: BECAUSE THEY WOULD GET OWNED THAT'S WHY!!! :D
You are pissing in the wind man and making no sence to me. There is no replacement for displacement OK! :rolleyes: Go sell this crap to the Bowtie boys while I pick my nose! :D

CMac89
11-11-2005, 02:03 PM
actually the heads flow just fine..its just the port and chamber design which make the heads work for what they are intended to do..make lots of torque!.
Well, I know that 300cfm on a 454ci motor sets cylinder head choke at about 5500. My SS has 470ci the heads flow 330cfm and cylinder head choke is at 6200rpm.

It has a 4.21 stroke so All it makes is torque. :mad:

oldschoolmuscle
11-11-2005, 02:12 PM
I hope you don't believe this load of horse S#!&!!! Fart and clear out your mind man! Ford could have easily made a mainstream engine to compete with anything Chevrolet can dream of with the 5.4L. ;) If i'm so wrong then why the hell dosn't chevy use the wimpy @$$ 4.8L engine in the Camaro's and Trans Ams????? :confused: :confused: :confused: BECAUSE THEY WOULD GET OWNED THAT'S WHY!!! :D
You are pissing in the wind man and making no sence to me. There is no replacement for displacement OK! :rolleyes: Go sell this crap to the Bowtie boys while I pick my nose! :D

Well, y in the wild wild world of sports would chevy put the smaller cid motors in there cars when then can run cleaner (EPA) get better mpg, and make more power more efficiently. I think you have 16 extra valves stuck up your ~~~. so go take a big ~~~~, and read some before making a ~~~ of yourself. any body can put a blower on a car and make 390hp on a 4valve motor.

CMac89
11-11-2005, 02:15 PM
I hope you don't believe this load of horse S#!&!!! Fart and clear out your mind man! Ford could have easily made a mainstream engine to compete with anything Chevrolet can dream of with the 5.4L. ;) If i'm so wrong then why the hell dosn't chevy use the wimpy @$$ 4.8L engine in the Camaro's and Trans Ams????? :confused: :confused: :confused: BECAUSE THEY WOULD GET OWNED THAT'S WHY!!! :D
You are pissing in the wind man and making no sence to me. There is no replacement for displacement OK! :rolleyes: Go sell this crap to the Bowtie boys while I pick my nose! :D
Wow, nice reasoning (sarcasm). I like how you just make this statement without any type of reason at all. I can do it too. Chevy didn't put the 4.8 in there because, unlike Ford, they want to use something different and not put a 4.6 in EVERYTHING.

Ford can put as many valves as they want to in a head, it still doesn't matter because the head flow/potential is already there for an ls1. You want to bring in another motor that we weren't talking about then lets bring in the 6.0 liter (ls2) motor or the ls7. The ls7 heads flow 370cfm (2valves).

You got it wrong, i'm pissing with the wind on the 4.6. You can say what you say, but it is what it is.

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 02:29 PM
Well, y in the wild wild world of sports would chevy put the smaller cid motors in there cars when then can run cleaner (EPA) get better mpg, and make more power more efficiently. I think you have 16 extra valves stuck up your ~~~. so go take a big ~~~~, and read some before making a ~~~ of yourself. any body can put a blower on a car and make 390hp on a 4valve motor.


WHO IS THIS GUY??? You don't have a clue as to what my point is, so why don't you write something relevant before making ignorant comments. :rolleyes:

Quote: Y in the wild wild world of sports... LOL!

Economy is the reason that Ford builds smaller displacement engines and the very same reason that CHEVY had to discontinue $#!% Boxes like SCAMAROS and Trans Ams! GET THE HELL OFF MY BOARD MONKEY BOY! :D :D :D

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 02:34 PM
Wow, nice reasoning (sarcasm). I like how you just make this statement without any type of reason at all. I can do it too. Chevy didn't put the 4.8 in there because, unlike Ford, they want to use something different and not put a 4.6 in EVERYTHING.

Ford can put as many valves as they want to in a head, it still doesn't matter because the head flow/potential is already there for an ls1. You want to bring in another motor that we weren't talking about then lets bring in the 6.0 liter (ls2) motor or the ls7. The ls7 heads flow 370cfm (2valves).

You got it wrong, i'm pissing with the wind on the 4.6. You can say what you say, but it is what it is.

You make a lot more sence than Monkey Boy, so I will be reasonable here. The 4.6L engine is not Ford's only alternative any more than Chevy's 5.7L is. BUT, the 4.6L engine does the job a lot more efficiently and that's why it will be bought by more consumers. That is the only reason that FORD does not opt for a more powerful windmill like the 5.4L. OR (what the hell) One of Pro Street Rich's set-ups. ;)
Sorry if my other post came across to rash. I just get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes man! :cool:

seawalkersee
11-11-2005, 02:45 PM
Wow....Im feeling the love. Actually, the 4.6 heads are not all that efficient. If you were to look at the ports for the LS heads, you would see a L O N G cross sectional area which is nearly a stright shot to the valve. The design is a good one and promotes high velocity with lower chances of "stall" over the vlaves. IF Ford were to have a head capable of this type of design, I believe the power numbers on the 4.6 would be up at least 10%. My reasoning for this is simple, look at the guys who run the big bore 4.6s. They are getting GREAT numbers from the improved scavenging and flows better because the valve is not shrouded like it is with the standard bore. Dont believe me? Look how much HP the guys with the 4vs are running. I think they were over 300 but I could be wrong on the NA. I do believe it though becasue the SC 4v guys are over 450rwhp. You will have to do your own research on that lest you prod at me for it...Search for big bore on TCCoA and see for yourself.

Chris

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 02:54 PM
Wow....Im feeling the love. Actually, the 4.6 heads are not all that efficient. If you were to look at the ports for the LS heads, you would see a L O N G cross sectional area which is nearly a stright shot to the valve. The design is a good one and promotes high velocity with lower chances of "stall" over the vlaves. IF Ford were to have a head capable of this type of design, I believe the power numbers on the 4.6 would be up at least 10%. My reasoning for this is simple, look at the guys who run the big bore 4.6s. They are getting GREAT numbers from the improved scavenging and flows better because the valve is not shrouded like it is with the standard bore. Dont believe me? Look how much HP the guys with the 4vs are running. I think they were over 300 but I could be wrong on the NA. I do believe it though becasue the SC 4v guys are over 450rwhp. You will have to do your own research on that lest you prod at me for it...Search for big bore on TCCoA and see for yourself.

Chris

Point taken Chris and I totally agree with you guys about the heads. My point is that Ford would definately get more performance across the board when competing against Chevy with a bigger engine. The Cobras are having success, but i'm sure the blower does not hurt any. The head design Chevys run on the 5.7L are impressive, but these guys are discussing all out race engines. I am talking about street engines after it was said that the 4.8L could just whip up on the 4.6's. :rolleyes:

CMac89
11-11-2005, 03:05 PM
Sorry if my other post came across to rash. I just get caught up in the heat of the moment sometimes man! :cool:

Yeah that kid pretty much does resemble a monkey.

No offense taken. It's fun to get into a legitimate, friendly piss contest once in a while.

You can make anything fast, obviously, so everything deserves some cookies. Except for civics. :D

I just hate to see a v8 get cut off of potential just because of lack of head potential. You can make big HP with littler motors easily. Hell, the new STS-V is a Supercharged 4.4 liter DOHC Northstar motor making 450hp and 430lbstq. :)

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 03:08 PM
Yeah that kid pretty much does resemble a monkey.

No offense taken. It's fun to get into a legitimate, friendly piss contest once in a while.

You can make anything fast, obviously, so everything deserves some cookies. Except for civics. :D

I just hate to see a v8 get cut off of potential just because of lack of head potential. You can make big HP with littler motors easily. Hell, the new STS-V is a Supercharged 4.4 liter DOHC Northstar motor making 450hp and 430lbstq. :)

:D I like you man! :D No right or wrong! Sometimes we just don't get along! ;)

CMac89
11-11-2005, 03:16 PM
:D I like you man! :D No right or wrong! Sometimes we just don't get along! ;)
You're a cool cat, Frank. :)

91supacoop
11-11-2005, 03:22 PM
how bout this for a compromise......if head flow and compression were equal, a larger displacement motor would make more power.

CMac89
11-11-2005, 03:24 PM
How 'bout this.....If guardrails didn't run out into the middle of the street all the time, then you could be driving your car around......J/K :)

Just pickin on the rich kid....

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 03:39 PM
how bout this for a compromise......if head flow and compression were equal, a larger displacement motor would make more power.

HEY CMac89, he has a legitamite point here! :D

I still luv you man! :D :D :D

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Dont believe me? Look how much HP the guys with the 4vs are running. I think they were over 300 but I could be wrong on the NA. I do believe it though becasue the SC 4v guys are over 450rwhp. You will have to do your own research on that lest you prod at me for it...Search for big bore on TCCoA and see for yourself.

Chris


I watched two seperate mustangs with N/A 4v's make over 300WHP. One was a 01 Cobra w/ longtubes, O/R X w/ dynomax's with a MAF and CAI kit made 314whp. Other was a 98 w/ 01 motor with an almost identical setup except for a prochamber and it made 303whp. My buddys 01 Cobra with just a catback exhaust, 42lb injectors, vortech sc-sq aftercooled blower made 478whp untuned @ 12lbs, 513whp @ 15lbs with a "Jerry" tune pegging the MAF @ 5800 (made power to 7100 untuned)

there are guys making upper 300's with n/a 4v motors with cams and better intakes.

CMac89
11-11-2005, 03:48 PM
By headflow, compression, and ci being better, bigger and larger than yes it does make more power. The 4.6's head flow isn't equal and ls1 is.

Larger the motor, the more head flow you need in order to take the advantage of the cubic inches.

Compression does take a big role in NA motors. For example, The Pontiac 428 motor in S/S heads flow about 300cfm, 13:1 compression, and the 455SD motor is 9.5:1 and heads flow 330. The 455SD makes about 10-20 more HP. Combustion chamber are 108cc'sfor the SD.

oldschoolmuscle
11-11-2005, 04:04 PM
to bad i have seen multiple ls1 cars make well over 300 rwhp, in stock form, hell a 4.8 5speed truck will dyno 290's. the large hump in the 4.6 runners to "boost low end torque" suck, along with valve shroudin and very small valvs.. you guys keep your mod motors, there a pain to work on, and expensive. if i wanna play with multi valve, multi cam motors ill play with the north star series. 4.4 caddy 450hp>390hp 4.6 4v motor, the cobra has 10 more cid, y doesn't make more power? you better watch who ur calling monkey boy, you turd burgler. lol :cool:

dirtybird91
11-11-2005, 06:00 PM
you better watch who ur calling monkey boy, you turd burgler. lol :cool:

No offence taken man, just guys being guys. Sorry if I was offensive.:cool:

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 06:08 PM
to bad i have seen multiple ls1 cars make well over 300 rwhp, in stock form, hell a 4.8 5speed truck will dyno 290's. the large hump in the 4.6 runners to "boost low end torque" suck, along with valve shroudin and very small valvs.. you guys keep your mod motors, there a pain to work on, and expensive. if i wanna play with multi valve, multi cam motors ill play with the north star series. 4.4 caddy 450hp>390hp 4.6 4v motor, the cobra has 10 more cid, y doesn't make more power? you better watch who ur calling monkey boy, you turd burgler. lol :cool:


and a LS1 has better flowing heads and more compression then a 4.6.. so they should make at least 300whp stock through a 6spd... especially if a 4v 4.6 can make 275 bone stock down to the paper filter.

fuq a 4.6 and ls motor. Ill keep my pushrod 302's :)

oldschoolmuscle
11-11-2005, 06:26 PM
my car stock made over 300 threw a a4 automagic, i will never have a mod motor. ill keep my 302. also.

XR7 Dave
11-11-2005, 07:16 PM
Just take the banana out your @$$ and leave!:D

Jeez loweeze! Was that really necessary??? :eek:

Anyway, you all can keep all your V8's. :p My V6 puts out over 400rwtq for almost exactly 3000rpm and the only reason it "only" made 440rwhp is that I got nervous about the - OMG - stock, unrebuilt, 195K mile bottom end at 6200rpm.

And yes, that's on pump gas. :cool:

CMac89
11-11-2005, 09:08 PM
Jeez loweeze! Was that really necessary??? :eek:

Anyway, you all can keep all your V8's. :p My V6 puts out over 400rwtq for almost exactly 3000rpm and the only reason it "only" made 440rwhp is that I got nervous about the - OMG - stock, unrebuilt, 195K mile bottom end at 6200rpm.

And yes, that's on pump gas. :cool:
Sunoco sells 110 out of a pump at their gas stations.

Are you deceiving us, Dave, or does that not count?

Blown 91 Bird
11-11-2005, 09:22 PM
VP stations in select states sell everything up to C16 out of the pump to the public...that counts as pumpgas too right? :D

XR7 Dave
11-11-2005, 10:26 PM
VP stations in select states sell everything up to C16 out of the pump to the public...that counts as pumpgas too right? :D

94 octane Sonoco. I tried 118 but it didn't run any faster and it fouled my 02 sensors. I even made 400rwhp in OKC on 91 octane paint thinner. :o

seawalkersee
11-11-2005, 11:26 PM
Wow...I have never seen as many guys get in an arguement about who is right by taking something WAY out of context and then adding in some sort of irrelevant statement that somehow skews what they are saying to make them look right...Put it this way Oldschool. Smaller cubes, less compression, lower (number) gears, and more restrictive exhaust...roughly the EXACT SAME hp and tq. Mustang against Camaro in 91 (or so) Enter the design change to the LT engine. Wow...thats great...left the crustang in the tracks...cudos to them...Enter 1998. LS1 in a camaro...More HP...more tq...2002...not made anymore. The rustang outsold the Camaro and Firehawk by at least two to one. Look, no relevance here but someone will respond and branch off. GM sucks the big one. I was actually looking at trading in both of my birds for a firechicken. Got onto a Camaro/LS website and asked the guys what was wrong with the cars. Ya know...what to look at before you buy kinda deal...HELLO...the only thing that was NOT listed was the fargin engine. I was farther ahead keeping my 93 SC with the leakin intake, sagging pass door, crappy exhaust, and early blower. Just my .O2. Dont like it... tell me to piss off and go back to the GM thread.

Chris

dirtybird91
11-12-2005, 09:26 AM
Jeez loweeze! Was that really necessary??? :eek:




You are right Dave, that was really uncalled for and I wish to apologize to OLDSCHOOL.:cool: Its just a little $#!% talking, and I was wrong for writing it. :o
I will delete that at once.;)

CMac89
11-12-2005, 11:58 AM
You are right Dave, that was really uncalled for and I wish to apologize to OLDSCHOOL.:cool: Its just a little $#!% talking, and I was wrong for writing it. :o
I will delete that at once.;)
If there's something that you ever need to get out of you, you know you can talk to everybody here about ANYTHING.

We're here for you Frank.:p

dirtybird91
11-12-2005, 12:08 PM
If there's something that you ever need to get out of you, you know you can talk to everybody here about ANYTHING.

We're here for you Frank.:p

Thanks Man! I just need a better way of venting sometimes. Wish there was a way my valve train would breath better. Like a good set of Chevy heads do.:D
You guys are great for tolorating my when I star as "Mr. Dirtybird". I am actually one hell of a guy. XR7 Dave is a good man and gives me a bad conscience.:p

David Neibert
11-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Just add a turbo and you can make big power with any motor.

David

dirtybird91
11-12-2005, 01:23 PM
Just add a turbo and you can make big power with any motor.

David

WHAT HE SAID!!!: :cool:

CMac89
11-12-2005, 01:25 PM
WHAT HE SAID!!!: :cool:
Now if only somehow we could get some kind of company to do the turbo kit when you give them the money and time to do it.:mad:

Blown 91 Bird
11-12-2005, 01:28 PM
Just add a turbo and you can make big power with any motor.

David

dunno about that. Ive seen some pretty ~~~~~~ DIY turbo setups that produced numbers that could have been achieved with a good heads/cam setup.

David Neibert
11-12-2005, 01:48 PM
dunno about that. Ive seen some pretty ~~~~~~ DIY turbo setups that produced numbers that could have been achieved with a good heads/cam setup.

Yes, but I bet you've also seen plenty of cars that were nearly stock, doubling the RWHP and RWTQ by adding nothing more than a properly sized turbo kit and some larger injectors.

David

Blown 91 Bird
11-12-2005, 01:52 PM
Yes, but I bet you've also seen plenty of cars that were nearly stock, doubling the RWHP and RWTQ by adding nothing more than a properly sized turbo kit and some larger injectors.

David


yes, with proven kits that actually work. My point is, you said you could just slap a turbo on and make a bunch of power, when in fact its not that easy since a turbo kit needs to be an efficient kit.

using a 2" crossover pipe with smaller then 1-5/8 primary headers with a turbo that has way too big of an A/R wont double up your power with the turn of a knob.


but i agree.. a good turbo kit with some supporting mods will double if not tripple your power. My 2.3 turbo motor i built probably made somewhere in the low 400WHP range (trapped 123 in a 2700lbs car), and all i did was add a simple (efficient) equal length primary manifold, TE44 turbo and a Tial 38mm WG, cam and cam gear. Hell of a jump over stock.

dirtybird91
11-12-2005, 02:49 PM
Now if only somehow we could get some kind of company to do the turbo kit when you give them the money and time to do it.:mad:

I hear ya man! HP Performance claims to have my turbo kit packaged up for my '00 Mustang GT. Now they only need to press the "send" button to make it appear on my porch.:rolleyes: I will keep you updated...:o

Blown 91 Bird
11-12-2005, 03:04 PM
I hear ya man! HP Performance claims to have my turbo kit packaged up for my '00 Mustang GT. Now they only need to press the "send" button to make it appear on my porch.:rolleyes: I will keep you updated...:o


good luck with that... from what i know quite a few 99+ mustangs have had fitment issues with HP Performance kits :(

dirtybird91
11-12-2005, 04:03 PM
good luck with that... from what i know quite a few 99+ mustangs have had fitment issues with HP Performance kits :(

Naaa, that's not what has me concerned. After two years, I just want the kit, or anything! As many of you are aware, HP Performance has had my '91 Supercoupe and was supposed to fit it with a custom turbo application. This never materialized, so now they are to ship me a turbo kit for the mustang at half price in a day or so. BUT, after two years - the promise of things does not raise a hair on my @$$.:(

Sorry for the hijack!:o