Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 03, 2010, 06:28:48 am

Login with username, password and session length
NOTICE!!!!
If you have a problem login to the site. Reset password or email Joel5.0PR@gmail.com I'm sorry
283177 Posts in 26272 Topics by 6869 Members
Latest Member: caryt
Search: Advanced search
Advertiser Inquiries
+ SBFTECH.com Experienced Small Block Ford Tech
|-+ Grass Roots Tech
| |-+ Grass Roots General Tech
| | |-+ Add 50-100 HP to Explorer 5.0 Motor
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Add 50-100 HP to Explorer 5.0 Motor  (Read 1259 times)
jayh
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692

Location: Buffalo

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2010, 12:13:55 am »

it doesnt have to be dual, 3 1/2" single is the same as 2 1/2" dual; 4" single is the same as 3" dual

there is a chart somewhere, but I dont have it offhand
this makes no sense to me me. Maybe I'm missing something?

 one BIG pipe can flow the same as two small pipes. pretty simple 
Logged

1.    Internet Thug -
1) An Internet thug, is a guy that acts all hardcore on the PC (via internet), but if you saw them in person, you would laugh. 2) a person that talks shit over the internet or over the phone, but in person, does not. Infact avoids confutation wholeheartedly. ie.- someone who is 5'8" 160lbs, looks like they are 16, and goes around the internet calling people twice their size a  faggot
Goody_Seven
Stroked Small Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 446

Location: Utah

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2010, 01:04:11 am »

it doesnt have to be dual, 3 1/2" single is the same as 2 1/2" dual; 4" single is the same as 3" dual

there is a chart somewhere, but I dont have it offhand
this makes no sense to me me. Maybe I'm missing something?

 one BIG pipe can flow the same as two small pipes. pretty simple 

3.5" single is less area than two 2.5"s?
Logged
351 windsor snake
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 713

Location: christchurch New Zealand

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2010, 01:05:23 am »

" one BIG pipe can flow the same as two small pipes. pretty simple"

Um no,  area of a circle is Pi x(r x r)

3.142 x2x2= 12.568   (4" single)

3.142 x1.5x1.5= 7.069 x2 =14.139  (3 1/2 x 2)

3.142 x 1.75x1.75= 9.622  (3 1/2 single)

3.142 x 1.25x1.25=4.909 x2 =9.81   (2 1/2 x2)

While they are close with the smaller size,you can see they get further apart as they get bigger in diameter.
This is why they use 2 smaller exhaust valves and 2 smaller inlet vales in a four valve head to get more in with less room
Logged

"The bitterness of a poor design lasts forever after the sweetness of cheapness is gone."
gtvert90
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4406


Location: Belvidere, IL

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2010, 01:05:46 am »

it doesnt have to be dual, 3 1/2" single is the same as 2 1/2" dual; 4" single is the same as 3" dual

there is a chart somewhere, but I dont have it offhand
this makes no sense to me me. Maybe I'm missing something?

 one BIG pipe can flow the same as two small pipes. pretty simple 

3.5" single is less area than two 2.5"s?
That's what I'm thinking.
Logged

Phil.

In reference to allfordmustangs
Quote from: amustangrocks;1664912
welcome the the best of the mustang forums 
I was a little hesitant to look at pictures of "your junk"
Spt at PC
gtvert90
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4406


Location: Belvidere, IL

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2010, 01:08:20 am »

" one BIG pipe can flow the same as two small pipes. pretty simple"

Um no,  area of a circle is Pi x(r x r)

3.142 x2x2= 12.568   (4" single)

3.142 x1.5x1.5= 7.069 x2 =14.139  (3 1/2 x 2)

3.142 x 1.75x1.75= 9.622  (3 1/2 single)

3.142 x 1.25x1.25=4.909 x2 =9.81   (2 1/2 x2)

While they are close with the smaller size,you can see they get further apart as they get bigger in diameter.
This is why they use 2 smaller exhaust valves and 2 smaller inlet vales in a four valve head to get more in with less room
The smaller sizes are closer then I thought. But still they aren't the same..

And you have to think of the exhaust pulses firing down the same pipe vs two
Logged

Phil.

In reference to allfordmustangs
Quote from: amustangrocks;1664912
welcome the the best of the mustang forums 
I was a little hesitant to look at pictures of "your junk"
Spt at PC
jayh
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692

Location: Buffalo

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2010, 01:12:10 am »

break it down into centimeters and its a little more accurate

NO they are not identical; my point was if its easier to route a single exhaust due to transfer case, fuel tank etc., its ok as long as the diameter is there to support the volume

for example, he has 2 1/2" single now, anyone care to argue a 3 1/2" single wouldnt flow more?

its close...
Logged

1.    Internet Thug -
1) An Internet thug, is a guy that acts all hardcore on the PC (via internet), but if you saw them in person, you would laugh. 2) a person that talks shit over the internet or over the phone, but in person, does not. Infact avoids confutation wholeheartedly. ie.- someone who is 5'8" 160lbs, looks like they are 16, and goes around the internet calling people twice their size a  faggot
gtvert90
Adv_SBFTechie
Big Block
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4406


Location: Belvidere, IL

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2010, 01:20:35 am »

NO they are not identical; my point was if its easier to route a single exhaust due to transfer case, fuel tank etc., its ok as long as the diameter is there to support the volume
it doesnt have to be dual, 3 1/2" single is the same as 2 1/2" dual; 4" single is the same as 3" dual

I'm sure its easier. But to say 1 3.5" is the same as 2 2.5" is flat wrong. Saying 1 4" is the same as 2 3" is once again wrong. Plus im still wondering what role the exhaust pulses play in it or if its null by then.

for example, he has 2 1/2" single now, anyone care to argue a 3 1/2" single wouldnt flow more?

its close...

That's not what anyone was arguing about. We all you know you love to argue thought
Logged

Phil.

In reference to allfordmustangs
Quote from: amustangrocks;1664912
welcome the the best of the mustang forums 
I was a little hesitant to look at pictures of "your junk"
Spt at PC
jayh
Big Block
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692

Location: Buffalo

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2010, 01:25:15 am »

my apologies, I should have said- "close to" or "in the ballpark"

I should have said "debate" not "argue"  Wink
Logged

1.    Internet Thug -
1) An Internet thug, is a guy that acts all hardcore on the PC (via internet), but if you saw them in person, you would laugh. 2) a person that talks shit over the internet or over the phone, but in person, does not. Infact avoids confutation wholeheartedly. ie.- someone who is 5'8" 160lbs, looks like they are 16, and goes around the internet calling people twice their size a  faggot
bronco74
2stroke
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5

Location:

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2010, 11:41:41 pm »

   sounds like what Iam fixin to do. I got a 74 bronco,c-4 duels intoglasspac's.95 5.0 HO,stock mustang headers, into 3:50 s I know the lift and larger tires stock 225 hp. she could use alot more another 100 hp,so my plan is 350 hp tf 170 w/2" valves comp recommeded x e258hr @533/544 Iam not sure about the 1.6 rollers ,but yea, or 331 bottom I do not want to cut up my stock hood. the 95/system puts the tb on the pass side away from the brake system. m/m said somthing  about a converter??? But still absorbing options, and the ecu is in the glove box covered with a diamond plate dash.  needs to match run with 5.0/ho ecu.    306  tf  170 heads stock ho intake  24lb injectors/newtb/mass ???  is 350hp/ 325flbs of torque  there/???
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC



408 Stroker