8/8/2011 5:01:05 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
northphxhiker
Phoenix, AZ
53, joined Apr. 2009
|
seen lots of ads about cold air intake for stock cars. cost varies from $35. to $250. for DIY.
does it replacing the air intake, really help, with performance or mileage?
seems like the size of the throttle body is the main thing that regulates air flow...
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
8/8/2011 5:13:15 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
gad_yisrael
Saint Louis, MO
30, joined Jul. 2011
|
Not much difference at all. Got to test different performance cool air induction units when attending UTI in PA and the flow bench showed very little difference in results from short ram or stock induction units. The main thing is the filter. Buy a K&N and let it be.
Save your money and buy a centrifugal vortex or Pro charger kit. You'll be glad you didn't waste the money on anything else.
|
8/8/2011 3:56:58 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
mierze6140
Middletown, CT
31, joined Mar. 2008
|
a short ram is NOT a cold air intake. theres a big difference. short ram filters are exposed in the engine bay, vulnerable to heat soak. a cold air draws air from underneath the front valance area which hasnt been affected by the hot engine. CAIs do increase power slightly, maybe even enough to feel it a tiny bit. and they do increase mileage slightly. but to be honest most of the MPG gain is diminished by the driver thinking he now has a tuned car, flooring it all the time. theyre best left as supporting mods for a more extensive build. but i say screw it, if its OEM, replace it!
|
8/8/2011 5:53:01 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
wouldn't waste my money on a K&N filter either
I had a V8 swapped S10 ( ~330 horse) running mid/low 13's in the 1/4.
Bunch of people told me I needed a bigger K&N filter vs the itty bitty fram ca353 I had on it. So I ran it with a vac gauge hooked up, several passes with and without the air filter. Always read 0 - 0.5" on the vac (at WOT) and et/mph were unaffected. If no filter had no effect then neither would a $$$ K&N.
Maybe it would help if you have a large cube motor and/or forced induction turning a lot of rpm.
|
8/8/2011 5:58:40 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
gad_yisrael
Saint Louis, MO
30, joined Jul. 2011
|
a short ram is NOT a cold air intake. theres a big difference. short ram filters are exposed in the engine bay, vulnerable to heat soak. a cold air draws air from underneath the front valance area which hasnt been affected by the hot engine. CAIs do increase power slightly, maybe even enough to feel it a tiny bit. and they do increase mileage slightly. but to be honest most of the MPG gain is diminished by the driver thinking he now has a tuned car, flooring it all the time. theyre best left as supporting mods for a more extensive build. but i say screw it, if its OEM, replace it!
Short ram or Cold air dosent matter the performance difference is minimal. I've seen flow bench results first hand with top manufactoring systems. On a consistant basis thier is only a 2% to 3% difference in air flow and you can get the same 2% to 3% by just switching to a performance gauze or steel mesh filter. Cold air or short ram aftermarket is a waste of money. I mention a K&N because they are still the world leader in performance filter aftermarket.
|
8/8/2011 6:04:15 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
gad_yisrael
Saint Louis, MO
30, joined Jul. 2011
|
wouldn't waste my money on a K&N filter either
I had a V8 swapped S10 ( ~330 horse) running mid/low 13's in the 1/4.
Bunch of people told me I needed a bigger K&N filter vs the itty bitty fram ca353 I had on it. So I ran it with a vac gauge hooked up, several passes with and without the air filter. Always read 0 - 0.5" on the vac (at WOT) and et/mph were unaffected. If no filter had no effect then neither would a $$$ K&N.
Maybe it would help if you have a large cube motor and/or forced induction turning a lot of rpm.
If anyone tells you need a bigger filter for anything tuning their an idiot. If you have a drag car theirs no need for a filter anyway...LOL but if you have your everyday car draging use a steel mesh.
|
8/8/2011 6:52:10 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
brentn331
Batesburg, SC
26, joined Jul. 2011
|
I bought one for my 02' v6 and it seemed to make a slight difference in performance. But if anything it just adds a little bling under the hood and listening to it take in the air while crusing the interstate is pretty cool to.
|
8/8/2011 8:49:52 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
mierze6140
Middletown, CT
31, joined Mar. 2008
|
the entire world cant be summed up in terms of CFM. if you have seen first hand that aftermarket intakes dont flow more VOLUME than OEM, fine, Ill take your word for it.
but that isnt all that theyre intended to do. one big factor is in the name alone: COLD air intake. it relocates the air inlet to a place less affected by engine temperture. that reduction in IAT is seen by the PCM and it adds more fuel. that is a fact. that equals more power.
the other intention is to smooth the airflow coming into the throttle body. factory intakes have silencers, baffles, and ridged rubber tubing. its not very swirl friendly. a smooth aluminum or pcv intake allows for a much smoother path into the throttle body, which provides a more complete burn of the air/fuel mixture.
im not saying anyone is wrong, or that these products provide gobbs of power. but they do have significant benefits, especially when coupled with other inductions mods, as i stated before.
if you put a CAI on your civic and call it modified, youre a douche. thats just a rule to live by.
|
8/8/2011 10:42:46 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
gad_yisrael
Saint Louis, MO
30, joined Jul. 2011
|
I bought one for my 02' v6 and it seemed to make a slight difference in performance. But if anything it just adds a little bling under the hood and listening to it take in the air while crusing the interstate is pretty cool to.
Exactly they are for show.
Everycar comes with a cool air intake, all car stock induction systems draw air from under the fender, lol. Take it from me its a waste of money, save your money for forced induction or nitrous systems.
|
8/8/2011 11:32:52 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
Short ram or Cold air dosent matter the performance difference is minimal. I've seen flow bench results first hand with top manufactoring systems. On a consistant basis thier is only a 2% to 3% difference in air flow and you can get the same 2% to 3% by just switching to a performance gauze or steel mesh filter. Cold air or short ram aftermarket is a waste of money. I mention a K&N because they are still the world leader in performance filter aftermarket.
Ever look at the inside of w stock air box and hose? It contains reducers, silencers, and ribs to reduce intake noise. Granted with force fed air on a flow bench, you can achieve very similar numbers, its the larger (sometimes) diameter, smoothed inside and direct route that makes these intakes effective at producing power. I've seen real world gains of over 20 horsepower on stock motors simply by replacing the inlet tube with an aftermarket system and a high-flow filter. On forced induction motors, this is less effective as air turbulence isn't as much of an issue at higher intake velocities, but it does, however reduce strain on the motor and the turbo/supercharger and lowers the cruising rpm.
Consider this... A motor is a large vacuum pump... Reduce the amount of restriction on the inlet side, and the motor does not have to generate as high of rpm to pull the air that it requires... This reduces cruising rpm, thus increasing gas mileage. The power is found in the reduction of strain on the motor.. Like removing an a/c compressor... Most power gains are found in the tune that should accompany an intake and exhaust system.
Automotive power is simple... A fossil fuel engine is simply an air pump, more air in, more air out equates to more power. Reduce the restriction, reduce the strain on the motor, increase power and increase mileage. The only reason fuel is required is for use as an ignition agent. Our atmosphere does not contain enough oxygen to create the explosion required in the combustion chamber. The fuel is used to offset this balance and allow the oxygen to ignite and release stored energy.
Turbochargers, superchargers, and nitrous are all used to force more oxygen into the combustion chamber... This addition of oxygen equates to more power, but also requires more fuel... Which requires a high pressured fuel pump and increased capacity injectors.
Questions so far?
|
8/8/2011 11:38:42 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
Another factor that I neglected to mention was air density... Yes, as it was mentioned prior to this... Colder air is more dense and thus provides more power... However, as you are pulling more air at a given rpm, a tune is required to make full benefit of the new intake.
|
8/9/2011 7:23:58 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
The only reason fuel is required is for use as an ignition agent. Our atmosphere does not contain enough oxygen to create the explosion required in the combustion chamber. The fuel is used to offset this balance and allow the oxygen to ignite and release stored energy.
Questions so far?
You have that part backwards. Oxygen is not flammable by itself - but combustion is impossible without it present in some form. It is just an oxidizer like nitrous oxide is.
You need oxygen, fuel, and a source of ignition for combustion to occur (preferably oxygen and fuel in the correct proportions).
Doesn't make your statement wrong, just a detail.
Do you ever run density altitude or oxygen altitude calculations at the track?
Factors to consider are temp (cold air=dense air), humidity(water displaces oxygen), and barometric pressure(effectively the weight of the atmosphere - relates to density).
|
8/9/2011 7:28:27 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
back on topic, a cold air intake/K&N filter is probably a waste of money on an otherwise stock V6 mustang.
It's a different story if you are going to be doing more modifications than just the intake.
|
8/10/2011 12:04:01 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
You have that part backwards. Oxygen is not flammable by itself - but combustion is impossible without it present in some form. It is just an oxidizer like nitrous oxide is.
You need oxygen, fuel, and a source of ignition for combustion to occur (preferably oxygen and fuel in the correct proportions).
Doesn't make your statement wrong, just a detail.
Do you ever run density altitude or oxygen altitude calculations at the track?
Factors to consider are temp (cold air=dense air), humidity(water displaces oxygen), and barometric pressure(effectively the weight of the atmosphere - relates to density).
This I know, but what I was trying to explain is that power is found in the amount of air that can be crammed into the combustion chamber... A vehicle can run lean, but will run hot, only to the limits of the octane of the fuel resulting in detonation or to the limits of the metallurgical strength of the hardware involved (too much heat melts shit) A vehicle that runs rich will run like shit until it becomes quenched, or when the fuel overwhelms the amount of oxygen and it falls out of it's vapor mixture and becomes liquid again. This causes a problem as gasoline as a liquid does not burn. Become too rich, the vehicle will not run... Too lean and you will melt it down... Unless the vehicle is built for that ( smokey yunick's hot vapor motor... In his fiero... Neat as hell)
I described the motor as an air pump because of this... Oxygen is a constant factor, and fuel is a variable. Many different types of fuel can be used as long as it can react exothermically with oxygen. Air in, air out... Provide enough material for the oxygen to react with and reduce combustion temperatures to within the threshold of detonation and material component strength.
For example... Top fuel cars require the highest octane available due to the extreme boost levels and compression... Alcohol does not burn hotter... It in fact reduces combustion temperature, but requires a very high output ignition system to fire, too expensive for passenger cars, but necessary due to it's excessive resistance to detonation (octane). Any fuel can be used... Just needs to react with oxygen in an outwardly violent manner, creating energy rather than requiring it... Called an exothermic reaction.
|
8/10/2011 7:54:15 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
ya - exothermic simply means the reaction produces/releases heat. Been thru a few engineering physics courses.
Would have to add that (atmospheric) oxygen isn't exactly a constant. That's why you see drag racers and pilots (among others) adjusting their tune to compensate for density altitude. It's also why your car will slow down on those hot humid summer days.
Smokey would have known this, but he was a little ahead of his time
Gotta love the top fuelers, 16+ hp per cubic inch with all the durability of wet tissue paper. Not so sure nitromethane has an octane rating but it does have some interesting properties.
The oxygen content of nitromethane enables it to burn with much less atmospheric oxygen.
4CH3NO2 + 3O2 ? 4CO2 + 6H2O + 2N2
14.7 lbs. of air is required to burn 1 pound of gasoline, but only 1.7 lb. of air for 1 lb. of nitromethane. Since an engine’s cylinder can only contain a limited amount of air on each stroke, 8.7 times more nitromethane than gasoline can be burned in one stroke.
|
8/10/2011 10:09:08 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
ya - exothermic simply means the reaction produces/releases heat. Been thru a few engineering physics courses.
Would have to add that (atmospheric) oxygen isn't exactly a constant. That's why you see drag racers and pilots (among others) adjusting their tune to compensate for density altitude. It's also why your car will slow down on those hot humid summer days.
Smokey would have known this, but he was a little ahead of his time
Gotta love the top fuelers, 16+ hp per cubic inch with all the durability of wet tissue paper. Not so sure nitromethane has an octane rating but it does have some interesting properties.
The oxygen content of nitromethane enables it to burn with much less atmospheric oxygen.
4CH3NO2 + 3O2 ? 4CO2 + 6H2O + 2N2
14.7 lbs. of air is required to burn 1 pound of gasoline, but only 1.7 lb. of air for 1 lb. of nitromethane. Since an engine’s cylinder can only contain a limited amount of air on each stroke, 8.7 times more nitromethane than gasoline can be burned in one stroke.
The amount of oxygen is not constant... But it is required in all internal combustion motors.
|
8/10/2011 7:09:52 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
Carguy gave a faithful rendition of elementary tertiary engineering academia to describe a combustion engine. I had study reference books saved to disk at one stage (aero engineering), and they describe two/four strokes as air pumps. They are extremely specific about this.
Also, interesting aside, four stroke aero engines substitute throttle altitudes for rpm power curve, ie. the power curve becomes an altitude performance curve. So ram air for example, you need higher operating rpm to benefit with on an auto racer (tried it on mine),
on an aero engine, identical engine just put it in a plane, the same thing just raises the throttle altitude, but you use the same engine settings with/without ram air, just raises the throttle altitude of the output setting.
weird, huh?
|
8/10/2011 7:25:20 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
In chemical engineering oxygen is the burny bit, fuel is just an accelerant to substitute deoxidizers normally in regular atmosphere (so you don't need to purify and liquify the oxygen, etc., you can just add an accelerant to a contaminated quantity of oxygen that won't burn because of all the contaminants).
ref. the Apollo fire that killed the astronauts on the pad for example. Caused by a pure oxygen atmosphere and an electrical short. The intense fire was the oxygen burning, the electrical short was just a spark behind the consol. The fire was so intense and consumed the entire cabin that all three astronauts were killed in their seats before the crew could get the door back open. NASA estimated they were burned to a crisp almost instantly and probably didn't suffer.
They modified safety requirements on spacecraft after that incident, cabin atmospheres now have to have deoxidizing elements (nitrogen, etc.), because pure oxygen is extremely flammable all by itself.
Accelerants are used in spacecraft because they'd weigh four times as much and be a hundred times more expensive if you used pure oxygen as a fuel. Technically speaking you don't need anything else for a big boom though. Just oxygen and an ignition source, and you get a hell of a boom.
So the fuel is really oxygen, and third party "fuels" are more correctly termed accelerants.
|
8/10/2011 7:30:09 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
carguy, you know your stuff mate
|
8/10/2011 9:10:27 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
WRONG! Oxygen is NOT flammable but can make one hell of a fire given a fuel and ignition source. I.E. oxygen is an accelerant.
|
8/10/2011 10:18:53 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
WRONG! Oxygen is NOT flammable but can make one hell of a fire given a fuel and ignition source. I.E. oxygen is an accelerant.
Ok. Let's delve deeper into the statement. The concept of burning is simply a generic term for a chemical reaction. Pure oxygen molecules as found in nature (o2) is radically destabilized by any high temperature source. As long as the oxygen molecules can break apart, and recombine with another unstable molecule, energy shall be released... The fuel, as Vanir states, substitutes deoxidizers like nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and sulfides that are in our atmosphere, and thus allowing a more consistent burn.
No... Oxygen itself does not burn, and neither does any other chemical element. Fire is simply the physical byproduct of the reaction, involving the separation and recombination of molecules and the release of energy... Oxygen is simply the most commonly involved element in this type of reaction and the more oxygen you can cram into a combustion chamber, the more capacity for power you gain, as long as you can provide enough material for it to recombine with (fuel).
However, in lay terms, more air in, more air out, reduction of resistance equates to more power and efficiency.
Done.
|
8/12/2011 12:32:33 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
WRONG! Oxygen is NOT flammable but can make one hell of a fire given a fuel and ignition source. I.E. oxygen is an accelerant.
Don't talk. Just read.
Source: This document taken from the Report of Apollo 204 Review Board
NASA Historical Reference Collection, NASA History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.
No single ignition source of the fire was conclusively identified.
The Command Module Environmental Control System design provides a pure oxygen atmosphere.
The fire in Command Module 012 was subsequently simulated closely by a test fire in a full-scale mock-up.
The test was conducted with a 16.7 pounds per square inch absolute, 100-percent oxygen atmosphere.
The test conditions were extremely hazardous.
The rapid spread of fire caused an increase in pressure and temperature which resulted in rupture of the Command Module and creation of a toxic atmosphere.
Studies of the use of a diluent gas be continued with particular reference to assessing the problems of gas detection and control and the risk of additional operations that would be required in the use of a two-gas atmosphere.
And engineering study books clearly state combustion engines are air pumps.
|
8/12/2011 12:36:15 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
Also, try this experiment at home.
Take an oxygen bottle, grab one from an oxy welder. Undo the top. Light a lighter and get back to me on it.
forget the lighter, just thought. Just spark a flint. Try it. Just spark.
[Edited 8/12/2011 12:37:13 AM ]
|
8/12/2011 12:52:07 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
And anyway this is the real point relevant.
However, in lay terms, more air in, more air out, reduction of resistance equates to more power and efficiency.
Done.
And I'm not qualified, I just read shit. Yeah I could be way wrong, but I need references, because I draw conclusions only from very qualified references to start with.
And I know full well you don't spark shit around an open oxy bottle. Strange that oxy bottles have "dangerous, flammable" plaques around here.
From the UK published industrial safety regulations:
Some materials react explosively if they come into contact with pure oxygen at high pressure. Other materials may catch fire spontaneously. Such materials are incompatible with oxygen.
Oxygen enriched atmospheres have guidelines "no open flames or smoking" but pure oxygen atmospheres are beyond dangerous, they're flammable.
|
8/12/2011 1:04:58 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
vanir
Victoria
Australia
45, joined Mar. 2008
|
(hey sorry about the multiple posting but the edit function keeps timing out before I can get the next thought down)
One other thing too, about tertiary schooling. Domestic engineering often lags behind theoretical physics, eg. in electrical engineering and most geophysics you only learn Newtonian mechanics because the cost/benefit ratio of studying relativity has no relation to the industries the qualifications are typically used in.
So they actually learn shit all wrong. If an electrical engineer, or a geophysicist gets an internship at NASA or the ESA they get retrained for relativistic engineering.
Just an example there that many domestic engineers would've had no idea in 1967 that a pure oxygen atmosphere under pressure would kill a room full of people with no more than a 7-volt sparking earth in less than two minutes. In fact NASA themselves had to reproduce the conditions to figure it out.
Remember that hard science is by "testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature" and not by theory alone, chemistry is often called stamp collecting by physcists. Theory is awesome, nature is the final word but.
|
8/12/2011 7:17:37 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
so you can read but seem to be a bit lacking on the comprehension. did i state or imply anywhere that an engine wasn't an air pump?
don't talk, read lol
http://www.isocinfo.com/DocumentRoot/13/Oxygen.pdf
|
8/12/2011 10:57:10 AM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
Ladies.... Ladies... Lol. And to think... My bachelors is in psychology with no formal automotive or engineering classes ever...
This is purely hobby for me.
But I've over boosted, hot rodded, road raced, tinkered, and messed around with wayyyyyy more mechanical shit than I probably should have.... Motor oil is in my blood, and mechanics are a slight obsession of mine.
|
8/14/2011 5:31:39 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
karrpilot
Oswego, IL
51, joined Jul. 2009
|
Has anybody realized that the poster has a V-6 Mustang? Let us be real here. A cold air intake is not going to do much, if anything, to the power output of the asthmatic engine. Nor the fuel economy. If that were indeed the case, would not Ford had installed one on the assembly line?
Me thinks that if one is going to want power and performance from their Mustang, than that someone is going to have to open up their wallets a little furthur. And purchase either a GT Mustang, or better yet, a Cobra Mustang.
Besides, there is a thing called dusting. This is where an engine basically gets the internals sand blasted. From so-called aftermarket air filters that let in more dirt, along with more air.
|
8/14/2011 7:17:31 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
Has anybody realized that the poster has a V-6 Mustang? Let us be real here. A cold air intake is not going to do much, if anything, to the power output of the asthmatic engine.
umm, yes
back on topic, a cold air intake/K&N filter is probably a waste of money on an otherwise stock V6 mustang.
It's a different story if you are going to be doing more modifications than just the intake.
|
8/14/2011 7:24:00 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
Besides, there is a thing called dusting. This is where an engine basically gets the internals sand blasted. From so-called aftermarket air filters that let in more dirt, along with more air.
true, never encountered it myself but plenty of anecdotal and other evidence to support it.
another common problem is over oiling the filter which can trash the MAF sensor.
|
8/14/2011 8:11:00 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
Has anybody realized that the poster has a V-6 Mustang? Let us be real here. A cold air intake is not going to do much, if anything, to the power output of the asthmatic engine. Nor the fuel economy. If that were indeed the case, would not Ford had installed one on the assembly line?
Me thinks that if one is going to want power and performance from their Mustang, than that someone is going to have to open up their wallets a little furthur. And purchase either a GT Mustang, or better yet, a Cobra Mustang.
Besides, there is a thing called dusting. This is where an engine basically gets the internals sand blasted. From so-called aftermarket air filters that let in more dirt, along with more air.
An the 3.8 liter V6 is very responsive to minor modifications. The motor is not codnsidered to be performance, so the minor details are over-looked. The air box, inlet and TB are all very restrictive on that particular motor... I've built several 3.8's and the most recent being a 900hp (1200hp on race gas with the boost maxed) twin turbo street car... Very overlooked little motors... Some spray, or a few PSI, and that little sixxer can run with a V8 for half the cost and better mileage.
|
8/14/2011 8:42:12 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
seen one running 10 sec 1/4 mile times (lots of spray)
I've got a boosted 3.8 L V6 too but it's a Buick (no Ford rivalry there lol)
|
8/14/2011 9:15:43 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
seen one running 10 sec 1/4 mile times (lots of spray)
I've got a boosted 3.8 L V6 too but it's a Buick (no Ford rivalry there lol)
Lol... Those drivetrains are just limited by the FWD platform.
|
8/14/2011 9:18:11 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
aye, mods + traction = needs new transmission
|
8/14/2011 9:25:14 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
exactly... and building the FWD trans for that is an expensive pain in the ass... Nice cars though. My buddy has almost 4 times what I have into my TBird as he has into his car, and he barely breaks into 11s... Sad day.
|
8/14/2011 9:30:43 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
guy on one of the buick boards hit 11.90's with only $700 (he claims) in the vehicle (lots of parts swapping going on tho)
stock motor except for the downpipe and 150 shot
major weight reduction
it went 13.30's without the spray
mine's just a DD, maybe someone will crash into it and I can pull the motor, replace s/c with turbo and put it in a RWD platform. wishful thinking.......
[Edited 8/14/2011 9:31:10 PM ]
|
8/14/2011 9:36:18 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
carguy1968
Adrian, MI
28, joined Aug. 2010
|
find a 3.8 V6 F-body... look for one with a five speed. Swap your drivetrain into it. Lots more fun.
|
8/14/2011 9:41:42 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
rhansen
Davenport, IA
45, joined Jan. 2011
|
was thinking S10 (it would make my 4th one), should come in under 3000 lbs (unlike the f-body). Nice to have a toy that can haul furniture too.
[Edited 8/14/2011 9:43:25 PM ]
|
9/26/2011 6:23:45 PM |
Cold air intake ford 2000 mustang v-6 |
|
evrae
Cullman, AL
34, joined Apr. 2008
|
don't expect any increase in power from a CAI on a car that does not have a turbo or supercharger equipped on it.
|