Turbo kit thread

He was also running a lot leaner before, and a leaner engine makes more power (up to a point.) That power comes at the expense of the engine itself, as it will burn itself out running lean. Running rich will reduce power, but it will also keep the engine from killing itself. Longevity is just as important as power. What good is it to get that extra 70HP if the engine melts down a week later?
 
Telco said:
...all the GLARING ENGINEERING FAILURES on the car and made it the car it should have been? But then I think, why not put that same power into a nice little Fiero? Or maybe a late 60s Volvo P1800? Or even that 70 model Pontiac Apollo for sale in the next town over? Or hey, how about that Datsun 280Z 4+4 I passed yesterday? Or even, dream of dreams, I pick up another 1972 Buick Skylark, which was my first car? My actual first car has been beer cans for decades now, but I could always find another...
Click to expand...

OK, but...at the time when the LS came out it had some solid ENGINEERING SUCCESSES as well

If the LS was your 'Spilled Milk' experience, why not pursue your other dreams listed? Fiero might be your best bet depending what your ambitions are. The other models are a bit old and/or don't exist and/or might be even harder to find parts for.
 
And by suggesting the Fiero I'm serious. Good combination of available parts, aftermarket, and customizable features...a newer platform (less rot), some non-complicated power options, maybe get one with a T-Top :)

I personally think a Turbo LS is cool. A bit of tweaking and it might just get there
 
I'll look into the map sensor, thanks. He also mentioned it could also be a transmission sensor, if the pcm sensed it slipping it could limit the throttle. I didn't know there was a transmission failsafe, sounds like the trans version of the engines ETC failsafe we've all gotten. I'm in contact with a shop that says they have a rebuild kit for the mustangs 5R55S trans good up to 1000hp, I'm hoping it will be compatible with this trans and if not they can rebuild mine either way. Thats what a got from a short email before they closed. I'm suppose to be getting a call tomorrow. If all goes well, I'll find a cheap trans to send them so I can drive my ls in the meantime and I'll swap the new trans out.
 
sounds like a solid plan.

hell if all the guys are running stock trans in their mustangs at the local track here running in the 11s and 10s, it should be much of a problem to get to hold enough for what you need...
 
Alax7 said:
I'll look into the map sensor, thanks. He also mentioned it could also be a transmission sensor, if the pcm sensed it slipping it could limit the throttle. I didn't know there was a transmission failsafe, sounds like the trans version of the engines ETC failsafe we've all gotten. I'm in contact with a shop that says they have a rebuild kit for the mustangs 5R55S trans good up to 1000hp, I'm hoping it will be compatible with this trans and if not they can rebuild mine either way. Thats what a got from a short email before they closed. I'm suppose to be getting a call tomorrow. If all goes well, I'll find a cheap trans to send them so I can drive my ls in the meantime and I'll swap the new trans out.
Click to expand...


Good Luck!!!!

See everyone in a year!!!:N:waving::drunk:
 
Great news on the transmissions, its all good to go. They have like 15 ls transmissions on stock and can do the rebuild good for 1000hp. Funny thing happened, the guy said he did one for a guy with a supercharger, I though QuikLS, but he said it was silver or gray with a big hood scoop and he did it like 3 months ago, said something about either big like a WWE wrestler or he was a WWE Wrestler, didn't hear that part too well. Cool stuff, wonder who it is. Trans will cost about 4k but for for very few venturing in similar waters. Now to start saving my nickels and dimes
 
Does the $4k include the cost of your spare trans, labor and kit?

Is there anyway to reduce the 1,000hp and therefore the cost of the rebuild? I am always in favor of overbuilding for giving yourself room to grow, but that seems excessive for what you will put the car through. Unless they just make ONE BIG rebuild kit, then maybe you have no choice.
 
No idea. They probably just do stock and beefy, I'll be getting an email with the cost break down tomorrow, I'll post it up
 
From the looks of it, they only make beefy parts so there is no mid rebuild, its the bullet proof 1000hp build or stock one
 
Oh cool, they're just over an hour away from me. Good to know... I wonder if they can rebuild/beef up the gen 1's 5R55N. They list the E, S, and W, but not N.
 
Hi Alex, I know long time. My trans went out the first time at about 64K, then it went out again at 114K. The first rebuild was done by the Lincoln dealer in San Gabriel, the second was done by a small shop in South Gate. When I spoke with him about it, I referenced if he could do a rebuild using Mustang performance parts. He looked into it and used a performance rebuild kit that was offered by Dana. I have 185k on it now and the trans still feels real good.
 
Alax7 said:
I'll look into the map sensor, thanks. He also mentioned it could also be a transmission sensor, if the pcm sensed it slipping it could limit the throttle. I didn't know there was a transmission failsafe, sounds like the trans version of the engines ETC failsafe we've all gotten. I'm in contact with a shop that says they have a rebuild kit for the mustangs 5R55S trans good up to 1000hp, I'm hoping it will be compatible with this trans and if not they can rebuild mine either way. Thats what a got from a short email before they closed. I'm suppose to be getting a call tomorrow. If all goes well, I'll find a cheap trans to send them so I can drive my ls in the meantime and I'll swap the new trans out.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent possibility, wouldn't have thought about it although OEMs include trans slippage in their PCM codes. If this were the case a scanner should have picked it up. Code might even still be in there if you've not driven it through too many drive cycles since the tune attempt.

embe said:
If the LS was your 'Spilled Milk' experience, why not pursue your other dreams listed?
Click to expand...

Had a great many cars, and not all of them were good ones, others were incredibly amazing. The reason I'm not a fan of my LS is I see so many places where Ford made the wrong choices and built a car that was less than it should have been. And no, it wasn't amazing for its time, it was lackluster. Power is mediocre, mileage is mediocre. Handling is decent, but could have been better. The Pontiac GTO was the same year range, yet made more power and was faster. Mileage was only slightly worse (would be equal to or better than the LS had they done the 6L80E and other fuel saving tech), and could be brought up with a simple tune. Ford could have ditched the Jag engine in favor of a 5 liter (and if they couldn't make it fit and work right they aren't the engineers they think they are) and done a 6 speed as well. Just slightly beefing up the suspension would have allowed the car to go more than 100K without needing to replace parts. Just a plastic formula change, no replacing the cooling system every 100K miles or so. The Mustang 5.0 engine would have corrected the COP issue by default. Plus the car would have been fast as hell AND supported by the aftermarket. It might even have cost less to build this way, or at least cost the same. It would have been a rocket that could have competed with BMW and Mercedes head to head and might even still be in production today. And, it's knowing all this that pisses me off about the LS. No worries though, keeping the rants to a minimum. I'll be quiet about it for a while again. ;)
 
dont forget, the ford 5.0 didn't come out until a decade (2010) after the car was designed... (or was discontinued a decade before depending on which 5.0 you are talking about)

but yes, IMHO, building a car so different from everything else they had was their biggest downfall for this car, for the longest time, there was a Lincoln counterpart to the mustang, this should have continued after the Mark VIII.
 
1LoudLS said:
dont forget, the ford 5.0 didn't come out until a decade (2010) after the car was designed... (or was discontinued a decade before depending on which 5.0 you are talking about)

but yes, IMHO, building a car so different from everything else they had was their biggest downfall for this car, for the longest time, there was a Lincoln counterpart to the mustang, this should have continued after the Mark VIII.
Click to expand...

OK, so the 4.6 then. I don't keep as close a track on Ford timelines as I do GM timelines. Same difference though, a shared engine with their other offerings would have made the car cheaper and more reliable. I don't hate the car itself, it's the obvious failings that should never have been that color my perception.
 
4.6/5.0 didn't fit. remember that. and the R&D to redevelop and crash test a car that the overwhelming majority would not modify was not even remotely worth it.
 
chris2523 said:
4.6/5.0 didn't fit. remember that. and the R&D to redevelop and crash test a car that the overwhelming majority would not modify was not even remotely worth it.
Click to expand...

That's an excuse for a shade tree mechanic, not Ford. Ford didn't have to use a Jag engine in this thing, they could have used a standard Ford engine from the get-go. Engineering it for a standard, commonly available Ford engine from the get-go would have cost the same development-wise for everything but the actual engine and trans (they did use a commonly available trans) but resulted in a cheaper sticker price, or more profit, than what for them was a one-off engine. And it was a one-off engine too, while Jaguar also used the AJ engine no other car than the Lincoln LS used the 3.9L version. Further, they could have used the 4.6L rwd platform for other cars, like perhaps the Mustang of the time, resulting in even more cost savings. Plus there would have been an IRS Mustang that much sooner.
 
chris2523 said:
4.6/5.0 didn't fit. remember that. and the R&D to redevelop and crash test a car that the overwhelming majority would not modify was not even remotely worth it.
Click to expand...

the 4.6/5.0 COULD have fit IF the car was designed for it from day one (which should have happened) using common parts with other cars would have actually saved ford money. the problem was the joint design with jag.


all of that R&D had to be done anyways for the car to be built. the correct choices were not made during the paper phase of the planning.
 
You guys are all assuming the LS was the "main" vehicle. The LS was the by-product of the S-Type. As Ford owned Jaguar at the time Ford needed to do something to help spread out the cost of the S-Type development and Lincoln needed an entry-level luxury car. The LS was the answer to that problem. There is a reason there is nothing in the Ford parts bin (maybe other than wheels) that fits the LS. The 4.6L fits, but not when loaded from the bottom.

I just LOVE all you Monday morning engineers. There is a reason it costs tens of millions of dollars to develop a gummint approved car. Even though the only difference between the 3.9L in the LS and T-Bird is the length of the exhaust system, the CARB requires a separate certification for K&N's Filtercharger intake. Stupid, right? But that is just one of the gazillion constraints gummint hamstrings manufacturers with. One of the reasons the manual wasn't available was the expensive crash testing that was required. ALL engine/trans combinations must be tested. The law of unintended consequences is an extreme force in the automobile manufacturing business. I learned A LOT visiting Wixom in '03 getting to talk to the actual LS engineers and watching the car being built.
 
I'm well aware of all of the testing needed to be done before a car can be sold, none of that changes the fact that there were a lot of mistakes made along the way with the LS.


but its also not uncommon for similar versions to have completely different engine options available

for instance look at the Focus/Mazda3/C30 cars... while all sharing the same platform, the mazda has has a couple of different engine options, the ford has its own engine and the Volvo also has a completely different engine.

car company's spend money is development and testing like its going out of style. Lets us not forget, when ford bought Volvo was probably during one of the times manufactures were spending the most money... with ford and Chevy in an arms race to acquire as many car manufactures as possible

they could have done what ever they wanted to, and to a lot of people, ford made the wrong choice... (had they made better choices, the car might have actually sold well)
 
I find it very odd that some folks here think the LS could only have been built as it was and nothing else was possible. If the engineers designing the car could only have built it the one way, they aren't very good engineers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 330 (members: 0, guests: 330)
Back
Top