mild ghost cam tunes for 3.7 V-6 - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-12-2012 Thread Starter
Banned
 
buildingsleeper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: belvidere
Posts: 794
 
mild ghost cam tunes for 3.7 V-6

I have heard the radical ghost cam tunes for the 5.0 and the 3.7 but why not do a tune that's very mild and still allows for the automatic transmission without the stalling and danger of having engine problems.I admit the tunes are nice but the drawbacks can be many of the radical version.The 3.7 can really benefit from a more conservative ghost tune and still gain that extra performance.

buildingsleeper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-12-2012
PONY Member
V6 Member
S197 Member
 
spaz2203's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Paloma Creek
Posts: 319
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildingsleeper View Post
I have heard the radical ghost cam tunes for the 5.0 and the 3.7 but why not do a tune that's very mild and still allows for the automatic transmission without the stalling and danger of having engine problems.I admit the tunes are nice but the drawbacks can be many of the radical version.The 3.7 can really benefit from a more conservative ghost tune and still gain that extra performance.
there's absolutely 0 performance gain from the ghost cam tune when compared to other tunes.

Sent from my SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

spaz2203 is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-12-2012 Thread Starter
Banned
 
buildingsleeper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: belvidere
Posts: 794
 
true but if it's added to a race tune it would be a nice touch.
buildingsleeper is offline  
 
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-12-2012
FiK
PONY Member
 
FiK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tempe
Posts: 935
 
Garage
Because spark timing can only make up so much for cam/valve timing. Ever consider that your theory is too obvious to have not been attempted before?

Idle lope is the exact opposite of sleeper, too. :\

2011 3.7L Performance Pack (3.31 gear); BMR Springs (1.0, 1.25), Adj Panhard, UCAM, UCA, CABs, LCAs; Tokico DSP-12s; GT500 Strut Mounts; DSS AL Driveshaft; JLT Oil Catch; TSW Interlagos 20x8.5 & Falken 255/35R20 x 4; Audio Sys; Amsoil Sig Series 5W-30/EAO17; Pypes 3" Catback;
On the shelf: H&R SS (1.7/2.4); MM 11+ CC Plates;

RICE
is anyone driving any vehicle with Race-Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements
.
FiK is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012
PONY Member
 
Rockaholic's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Central
Posts: 333
 
True, but gotta love the looks when a v6 pulls up loping like that!
Rockaholic is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012 Thread Starter
Banned
 
buildingsleeper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: belvidere
Posts: 794
 
ok but what's the difference with a single in block cam versus a dual over head cam? they both perform the same task just in a different configuration.with a V-8 like a 348 or even a 351. with a mild cam it still needs the compression and spark advance.now if we were dealing with 4 valve heads versus 2 valve heads then the cam overlap is more efficient with scavenging on the 4 valve heads.it's not rocket science. it's rpm's working together with airflow.untill they make a more efficient way to make the timing of the cams against the measured airflow that goes in and comes out of the heads then were back to square one with trying to improve the volumetric efficiency with just independently moving the cams.the big question is how well does the current intake, throttle body and cam profile truely work with the dynamics of the engine.for the engines we have that's our biggest hurdle. and until they come up with a better system that works then we don't have many choices.park timing only coincides with engine rpm's.
buildingsleeper is offline  
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012
Banned
 
Grabber2012's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Westford
Posts: 1,345
 
How does your car run now? Sounds like you're an independent type with that mod list - for reference, what's your 1/4 mile MPH?
Grabber2012 is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012 Thread Starter
Banned
 
buildingsleeper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: belvidere
Posts: 794
 
stock without any mods i ran a 14.03 at 101.58. that's with 2.73 gears and a k&n airfilter. the point I'm trying to make is that with 4 valve heads using 1 port to feed 2 valves is pointless. there's no efficiency. they need to look at the motorcycle manufacturers. 2 intake ports one per valve along with exhaust ports.it can be done with the current technology and it can increase mileage and horsepower.like I said it's not rocket science it's mainly common sense and the understanding of how the engine was designed to work.I'm no engineer and I'm not a genius but if you look at it to get as close to 1-1 volumetric efficiency this would be a huge step.
buildingsleeper is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012
FiK
PONY Member
 
FiK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tempe
Posts: 935
 
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildingsleeper View Post
ok but what's the difference with a single in block cam versus a dual over head cam? they both perform the same task just in a different configuration.with a V-8 like a 348 or even a 351. with a mild cam it still needs the compression and spark advance.now if we were dealing with 4 valve heads versus 2 valve heads then the cam overlap is more efficient with scavenging on the 4 valve heads.it's not rocket science. it's rpm's working together with airflow.untill they make a more efficient way to make the timing of the cams against the measured airflow that goes in and comes out of the heads then were back to square one with trying to improve the volumetric efficiency with just independently moving the cams.the big question is how well does the current intake, throttle body and cam profile truely work with the dynamics of the engine.for the engines we have that's our biggest hurdle. and until they come up with a better system that works then we don't have many choices.park timing only coincides with engine rpm's.
As you point out, there's a lot you don't know. So why make assertions, assumptions, and conclusions about concepts you don't fully comprehend? You're essentially calling all the automotive engineers in the world completely incompetent, while being simply wrong and confused about the matter. Even I especially don't know everything there is to know about engines, but I've known people who are prone to just parroting things they've heard without understanding what they're saying, and that's exactly what it reads like you're doing in that run-on paragraph.

You were originally talking about making a mild tune so you can have ghost cam tunes functional without cons. What does calling the 3.7L's port/intake design bad have anything to do with that? You also wrote out that you understand that air flow is different and low and high RPM, but then you don't understand why the valve-timing profile for high-RPM, maximum-reliable-power-output won't function efficiently for low-RPM versus the low-RPM-tuned, fuel-efficiency profile (which, based on valve/spark timing theory still develops more low/idle RPM power than the other profile).

To answer your second question about intake/exhaust port design, I'll just point out that you're only considering the volumetric efficiency of the air charges - if it was all open holes for air to flow through, you lose a lot of block/head integrity in both strength and heat transfer from removing volume otherwise occupied by aluminum. "Herpaderp use better materials"? **** costs more money in either base cost, or research and development of unknown better materials. A car company can't stay in business trying to sell a car for $22k if it costs $25k to make. The engineers behind the 3.7L knew what they were doing, why assume they would work away from 'common sense'?

Grab something to eat/drink, sit down, and read through these:
Variable Cam Timing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Variable valve timing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People like knocking Wikipedia, but it'll learn people lots.

2011 3.7L Performance Pack (3.31 gear); BMR Springs (1.0, 1.25), Adj Panhard, UCAM, UCA, CABs, LCAs; Tokico DSP-12s; GT500 Strut Mounts; DSS AL Driveshaft; JLT Oil Catch; TSW Interlagos 20x8.5 & Falken 255/35R20 x 4; Audio Sys; Amsoil Sig Series 5W-30/EAO17; Pypes 3" Catback;
On the shelf: H&R SS (1.7/2.4); MM 11+ CC Plates;

RICE
is anyone driving any vehicle with Race-Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements
.
FiK is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-13-2012 Thread Starter
Banned
 
buildingsleeper's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: belvidere
Posts: 794
 
because common sense and keeping within the guidlines of the oil companies that they help to support are 2 different views. and to answer another question. I went to college for automotive science. not repair technology.and yes i do understand how an engine works. I used to build race engines. everything about variable cam timing is nice but it still doesn't change the duration of how long the valves are mechanically open and closed. all it does is change the centerline of the cams by changing the position.honda had a design that was camless with an electronically controlled solenoid that varied valve lift due to the demands of the engine.hence the V tech design.now not to get off topic why couldn't they have used a version of the boss intake adapted for the V-6 along with a version of the cam profile?anyway I'm not trying to start a problem i'm just trying to see why they didn't do a little more investigating into things.
buildingsleeper is offline  
Banned
V6 Member
5.0L Member
 
z28th1s's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Lynchburg
Posts: 1,831
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildingsleeper View Post
stock without any mods i ran a 14.03 at 101.58. that's with 2.73 gears and a k&n airfilter. the point I'm trying to make is that with 4 valve heads using 1 port to feed 2 valves is pointless. there's no efficiency. they need to look at the motorcycle manufacturers. 2 intake ports one per valve along with exhaust ports.it can be done with the current technology and it can increase mileage and horsepower.like I said it's not rocket science it's mainly common sense and the understanding of how the engine was designed to work.I'm no engineer and I'm not a genius but if you look at it to get as close to 1-1 volumetric efficiency this would be a huge step.
What does your car run after your mods? Were there any improvements? That is how you know if you are making more power, either you have higher dyno numbers or lower ET's and higher trap speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buildingsleeper View Post
because common sense and keeping within the guidlines of the oil companies that they help to support are 2 different views. and to answer another question. I went to college for automotive science. not repair technology.and yes i do understand how an engine works. I used to build race engines. everything about variable cam timing is nice but it still doesn't change the duration of how long the valves are mechanically open and closed. all it does is change the centerline of the cams by changing the position.honda had a design that was camless with an electronically controlled solenoid that varied valve lift due to the demands of the engine.hence the V tech design.now not to get off topic why couldn't they have used a version of the boss intake adapted for the V-6 along with a version of the cam profile?anyway I'm not trying to start a problem i'm just trying to see why they didn't do a little more investigating into things.
Why would we want a Boss intake on our V6? The Boss intakes don't make more power over the stock intake until well above 6K RPM's and gives up quite a bit of torque, especially down low. Mostly stock V6's would feel like a turd with a Boss style intake on it!
z28th1s is offline  
Banned
 
Intense's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,201
 
So the OP wants sound and no performance gain? What is the question here?
Intense is offline  
Banned
 
Grabber2012's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Westford
Posts: 1,345
 
What is the question here?

Yeah, I can't tell any longer. Z28th1ls is doing a great job of asking my next question before I do, though.
Grabber2012 is offline  
Banned
V6 Member
5.0L Member
 
z28th1s's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Lynchburg
Posts: 1,831
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grabber2012 View Post
What is the question here?

Yeah, I can't tell any longer. Z28th1ls is doing a great job of asking my next question before I do, though.
z28th1s is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1