Mark VIII performance, Whats next?

[XLRVIII]

I miss smoking pot.:slam

Well dang sorry to hear that.. you should come over and I'll hook a brutha up.
HAHA

I dont miss drinking, it made my driving suck and totally killed my reaction times.

on the other hand, cutting .020 lights at will with a little help from "BOB".
*LMAO*

 

[XLRVIII]

Last two tankfuls I went over 400 miles on each tank and still had 3 gallons in the tank, it only took 15 gallons to "refill".
( I dont run my car empty, I re-fill at 3 gallons left or 15 gallons used, whichever shows up first)

the "last" tankful included a trip to the dragstrip as well.

over the course of the last two tanks I'm averaging 26.6 over 800+ miles driven.

not too bad considering my commute to work is 15 miles of non hiway travel each way with alot of stop lights.

Very short commutes doesnt' help gas mileage.

These figures are using the "Fill, drove, re-fill, caculate" method.

Getting ready to go "re-fill" this morning.. and put another 400+ miles down.
I am keeping a running tally of the gas mileage, if I remember I'll come back and post my "next tank" results as well.. should only be 4-5 days and I'll have used "this tank".

 

[MonsterMark]

Well dang sorry to hear that.. you should come over and I'll hook a brutha up.

Ya, as we're doing the Cheech and Chong thing, maybe you could teach a brutha how to launch a 3200 stall without shredding the tires. Rolling into the throttle has not been known to create the best 60ft'rs.

 

[mespock]

Same here, at 396,000 miles I think I've pretty much ran into EVERYTHING under the sun, except the moon.

Well that's far enought to have made it to the moon and a portion of the way back. About a 470,000 mile trip give or take a few 10,000 miles.

MPG?

You're driving a Luxury Sport Coupe. If you want mpg, maybe you should be driving a prius.

You have a point... A heavy LSC that we happen to enjoy the driving more like it's a just an SC... LOL..

So What's next... LOL... Gears or Gas Mileage...

 

[Cbecker1994Vlll]

odd mine turned high 14's all day long stock no mods no nothing

 

[Cbecker1994Vlll]

oh you could always try a driver mod those work great usually. just bustin your balls. haha

 

[MonsterMark]

Last night I went to the track (see other post) and tried to get into the 14's and ran 15.034. I would like to do some mod to get my car to consistantly run 14's.

Here is a list of things I have done to the car thusfar:
K&N drop in filter
removed all air silencers
MSD wires
Autolite 764's
Magnaflow catback exhaust
245\45\18 tires
Switched all fluids to synthetic
SCT xcal2 from Torrie

Now getting back to your original question...

Here is a list of things I have done to the car thusfar:
K&N drop in filter - Bad for performance over stock filter for this car.
removed all air silencers - No performance gain
MSD wires - No performance gain
Autolite 764's - No performance gain, better idle.
Magnaflow catback exhaust - Doesn't say 2" or 2-1/2" system?
245\45\18 tires - Worse for performance
Switched all fluids to synthetic - No performance gain unless it is my magic oil additive.
SCT xcal2 from Torrie - Good gain with shift points firmed up and timing changed. Good bang for buck.

As you can see, you have not done much in the performance gain department with the exception of the Xcal.

So where do you start? To get decently into the 14's without much cash.
1) Gears, 4.10's if you dont' do alot of freeway. Just swap in the gears, you don't 'have' to have a trac-loc unit.
2) Clean intake and IMRC's, Huge on a hi-mile car.
3) Change fuel filter just to make sure you are getting gas up there.
4) Snowflakes or other light aluminum wheel.
5) I would change out the diff fluid and add new synthetic and a friction modifier. Also same for trans if it has had frequent changes. If it hasn't, don't touch it. Even if you change out the fluid, it will probably fail with the new fluid in it.
6) Repack bearings with high end grease. (You should see how long my wheels spin versus stock.)

After that, it costs money.
Add headers with true dual exhaust.
Head exhaust work.
New Cobra intake for high end.
Cams.
Power adder or compression.
etc, etc.

 

[MonsterMark]

odd mine turned high 14's all day long stock no mods no nothing

No to change the subject but what '94 did you have (in your sig) and what mods were on it to run 11.8?

 

[Cbecker1994Vlll]

No to change the subject but what '94 did you have (in your sig) and what mods were on it to run 11.8?

blue on blue 94 with 5.0l stroker 03 cobra heads that were reworked.crower stage 1 cams obd 2 conversion. on spray 150 shot off the line 250 shot down the strip the time was just with the 150 shot 4.10s reworked tranny. I blew the tranny apart when i hit the 250 shot. so i never knew its full potential at the track. But from there we dropped a kenne bell 2.8L on it(572rwhp @15psi coulda turned the wick up on it and got way more power but wanted it to stay drivable) and it was stupid sic never got a chance to take it to the track before i got rid of it(which i am still kicking myself for thats why i bought another one to play with.

ahh damn i miss my car

 

[shagdrum]

This is somewhat like arguing the point that more HP will automatically mean less MPG. There is a "sweet spot" of efficiency for both the power output of an engine and an RPM used to move a car. And I think we all know the OEM usually misses the mark on that sweet spot for power(were this not the case, CAI, Cat-backs and tuners would never show a mileage gain). So is it hard to imagine they perhaps don't have it just right for the gearing?

You achive the maximum efficient balance point where the tradeoff between horsepower and gas is at its best.

Here is where I see a flaw in your thinking in two areas...

1:The engine is turning at a higher RPM, so even though less fuel is being shot into the cylinders, per revolution, to create cumbustion and move the piston, the engine is running at a much higher RPM. More revolutions equal more gas. There would have to be a 50% drop in gas used per revolution to maintain the same gas mileage at 2000 RPM's as you would have at 1000 RPM's.​

2: You don't need to make all the horsepower availible at that balance point to maintain highway speeds. driving at that higher RPM is wasting energy and gas. Look at how the vairable displacement engines work. The shut off cylinders at crusing speeds, reducing both fuel consumption and horsepower.​

Your argument seems to be built around the idea that more horsepower equals better gas mileage. On the highway, under normal driving conditions, that is untrue.

 

[shagdrum]

:bsflag:

I miss smoking pot.:slam

Fill up your tank, drive a long distance, fill up the tank to the same level. Take miles driven divided by gallons added and presto, mpg. Everything else is bunk and a 3.73 equipped Mark getting 35-36 mpg is total bunk.

Just fighting fiction with reality.:drunk:

I wonder sometimes how much money Ford wasted trying to obtain 18 city and 26 highway ratings for this car when they just could have went to one of you guys for the expertise of adding some 3.73's or 4.10's or heck, 4.56's must get 40 mpg, using some fancy new one-step colder plugs, taking the spare out of the trunk, and putting that fancy Mobil 1 in the crankcase and increasing the mpg by 35%.

Ford doesn't even need the new Eco-Boost motor now. All they have to do is add an electric supercharger instead of the direct-port twin-turbo that runs on E-85 they are introducing now.

Don't forget that they can always add higher end muffler bearings (will actually help suck the exhaust right out of the engine), or those new flux capacitors that allow enough power to get up to lightspeed!!!

 

[NateRW21]

You achive the maximum efficient balance point where the tradeoff between horsepower and gas is at its best.

Here is where I see a flaw in your thinking in two areas...

1:The engine is turning at a higher RPM, so even though less fuel is being shot into the cylinders, per revolution, to create cumbustion and move the piston, the engine is running at a much higher RPM. More revolutions equal more gas. There would have to be a 50% drop in gas used per revolution to maintain the same gas mileage at 2000 RPM's as you would have at 1000 RPM's.​

2: You don't need to make all the horsepower availible at that balance point to maintain highway speeds. driving at that higher RPM is wasting energy and gas. Look at how the vairable displacement engines work. The shut off cylinders at crusing speeds, reducing both fuel consumption and horsepower.​

Your argument seems to be built around the idea that more horsepower equals better gas mileage. On the highway, under normal driving conditions, that is untrue.

We're not talking about a change in 1000 RPM's (atleast I'M not). What I'm saying is, you may be able to keep the car moving 70mph with the engine turning at 1200 RPM. But the engine will be fighting so hard to keep the car moving that the fuel consumption will be higher than if the engine was turning at 1500RPM. You're first sentance was exactly my point.

Who's to say the factory got it just right for everyone's driving style/habbits?

 

[k9t8m]

Just to update this old post i have decided to go with 3:73's and trac-lock. I will also be adding a tranny cooler. I am going to hold off on the SC build though. I refuse to pay more for the SC build then i payed for the car in the first place.

For the cost of the SC build i can buy a 9 second bike. But then again there is nothing like a supercharged 96 LSC.........

 

[brentalan]

good choice IMO