I saw a post somewhere and someone (pretty thin so far) said he dynoed his car with a 2.93 and a 2.80 and said the gains between the two were slim. He figured he was at max efficiency with the 2.93.
:rollseyes
sqidd
:rollseyes
sqidd
edited: That's high roller's post.Originally posted by sqidd
I saw a post somewhere and someone (pretty thin so far) said he dynoed his car with a 2.93 and a 2.80 and said the gains between the two were slim. He figured he was at max efficiency with the 2.93.
:rollseyes
sqidd
Have these "authorities" fixed your car? Any updates on your situation?Originally posted by mike69440
I have it on good authority:
1. The rear end is indestructible on street tires.
2. The 2.93 diameter puller does not overstress the blower and volumetric efficiency stays ok. The 2.8 Pulley puts too much belt load on the snout and will have long term durability effect. I was originally going to go with a 3.2 pulley, but was advised that the 2.93 is "a real good match".
3. The motor itself is stout. They do not anticipate people will have internal problems from +500 motors as long as they have a good tune.
4. They really like what the Bassani X pipe specific for the 03 will do. Scavenges the iron manifolds well. Good converters.
5. There is not really a lot of loss from the stock airbox and even the silencer. What really sucks is the Ford stock filter and even any of the stock K&N or other supposedly high flow Stock filters replacements. Simply the filters are the major restriction. What needs to be developed is a larger capacity filter for the 03 stock air box.
Originally posted by Fast03Cobra
WHO MAKES A 3" system?
Originally posted by Reelman
I was thinking a good compromise would be a 3.20 pulley to replace the 3.65 we have.Prolly give you 2 to 3 lbs andkeep the inlet heat down a bit..
Anyone else think somewhere between the L pulley 2.93 and the Stock Pulley whould be good.
Jim V.
I agree with Jimmy V. Point me to a 3.20
Originally posted by iistrading
LomanCobra:
There is no "rev limit" of 14,000 rpms. The 14,000 RPMs on Eaton's chart is just where the chart stops. Why do you think that Ford installed press on Pulleys instead of Eaton's splined shaft (to discourage Pulley changes). Why does the Eaton chart stop at 14,000 RPMs when it's a known fact that higher RPMs (within reasonable limits) brings more boost and performance (to discourage higher boost because of Ford and Eaton product liability issues).
My two Lightning pickups run 2.80" upper Pulleys and 9.75" lower Pulleys and at peak RPMs of 6,000 the Eaton M112 is turning 20,892 RPMs. The risk on the Lightning is not that the Eaton M112 blows up from the higher RPMs but rather like someone else mentioned the rods fail. The Lightnings do not have the Manley rods (or other stong internals) like the 03 Cobra come stock from the factory with.
Remember the Eaton M112 in my Lightning is only turning these peak RPMs for split seconds. I too have never heard of a Eaton M112 failure from operating in ranges from 14,000-20,000 RPM. I am not even sure how efficient the M112 is beyond 18,000 RPM but the Lightning pulley changes result in significant RWHP & RWTQ improvements in all ranges especially the lower and middle ranges of the RMP power curve. With every Pulley change we made to increase boost there were significant improvements in 60 ft, 1/8 and 1/4 mile ET at the strip. I now feel we have reached a level (through Pulley changes) where the stock Eaton M112 (without modification) has nothing left to give (it's maxed out).