at what RPM?
FRPP N/A 5.0L Cobra Jet Intake Manifold
- Thread starter Carbd86GT
- Start date
at what RPM?
I'm sorry but without internal mods of some kind I don't feel safe pushing my motor over 8 grand. Ill wait to see if this is really worth over the boss seeing you need a new intake and throttle body for it.
It probably wont make much. Its more of an enabler for high HP cobra jets.. huge Throttle body and better peak flow numbers only matter if you are pushing
A. Increased displacement (cobra jet is 94mm bore vs. our 92.2mm)
B. Increased RPM - 8300+ redline
C. Increased static compression ratio for more torque.
yea, they don't add anything structurally. you're not losing anything without it.
Agreed. Here are pics from a Boss 302R...not even running a strut bar:
Uhm.. the race cars without braces have roll cages and they have tubes extending in front of the struts. The strut brace makes a big difference reducing tower deflection during cornering. Example New viper gained massive stiffness w a front x brace.
Agreed. Here are pics from a Boss 302R...not even running a strut bar:
Interesting. Different intake casting, and has the PCV system hooked up. I wonder which 302r that was from. /nerdingout
The main people that will be running this intake could give 2 shits less about cornering. Just saying.
Sent from my iPhone or iPad using Tapatalk
Lethal Performance need to test this manifold on one of their cars and do a write up... a dyno test before and after and also track times before and after...
if it dose good more people will buy = more $$$$$ in LP's pocket
if it dose good more people will buy = more $$$$$ in LP's pocket
How will this do with forced induction? I feel like a centri/turbo setup and this manifold/tb combo revving to 8k could be a forced to be reckoned with. Would also look badass under the hood.
I was waiting for this, thanks for the update. It has also been added to the site and will show tomorrow morning. :beer:
the strut towers really don't deflect to any meaningful degree during cornering - they're designed not to obviously. the most deflection occurs during brake however, the strut towers try to rotate forward. that's why race cars with any kind of brace that connects to the strut towers uses a 'export brace' that ties into the firewall and in some cases the radiator core support.
the 2013 viper is a poor example, it has a completely different type of chassis(and suspension - SLA vs macphereson strut)...
...the shock towers of the 2013 viper space frame don't have any support at the top, while...
...the strut towers of the S197 mustang unibody have a significant amount of support, with large frame rails along the top. it's easy to see how the '13 viper will benefit from an X-brace while it won't make much of a difference on the typical unibody car.
besides, if it actually made any sort of significant difference, then ford's continental challenge race cars - the boss 302R - would have one, like BlackNDecker alluded to.
Last edited:
Rt, thanks for that post. i'm now contemplating removing my boss strut tower brace since its just in the way. I also read that the brace actaully will hurt turn in becuase stiffening these towers reduces the flex and you need more camber with one. Also you will need more toe out for the same reason.
Now.. check out this video of a camaro. there is significant deflection going on.
I know the SVT cars do not have a brace, but i always thought that was a sacrifice to fit the SC.
Camaro Chassis Flex Demonstration - YouTube
I will take the brace off this evening and give it a try.
Thanks!
Now.. check out this video of a camaro. there is significant deflection going on.
I know the SVT cars do not have a brace, but i always thought that was a sacrifice to fit the SC.
Camaro Chassis Flex Demonstration - YouTube
I will take the brace off this evening and give it a try.
Thanks!
no problem! it's a topic that i've researched a bit after noticing how many puny ass strut tower braces there were in the marketplace that claim to make some significant difference. some guys over at corner-carvers actually did some testing to see how much the strut towers of a given car actually flexed during high lateral loads and it was very minimal.
as far as that camaro video, there's definitely demonstrable strut tower flex, but honestly that wouldn't sell me on buying one. they said each line was 2mm apart, so, at most, there was maybe 4 to 5mm of flex. that's about 3/16". i really don't think that's enough to change the suspension geometry to the point where there is a measurable difference in terms of either maximum or sustained lateral grip or stability. and i would challenge anyone to honestly, conclusively say that they could "feel" a difference with and without a strut tower brace, and i bet a single blind trial would prove that too.
Before we put the blower on my car in March of last year Jon Lund removed the rev limiters on my ECU and we did one pull to see how high we could go all stock on the Boss ECU. We ran 8350:beer: RPM before the ECU shut down the party. I then drove the car for 2 months with a JLT intake and full exhaust while Jon had my soft rev limiter at 7900 and hard rev at 8100...it was so freaking awesome!!!! I miss that sound ...8000 RPMS of ROADRUNNER screaming on the back roads!!! Sorry back on topic..
In theory the ROADRUNNER should now be able to rev limit at approx 8450:rockon:
I'm not sure the stock valvetrain will handle 8450 for very long.
The valve train is fantastic on the 5.0s. Miniaturized and captive lash adjusters to roller finger followers. Better then the old modular stuff(and they didn't suck). Ford engineers did a fantastic job with this new mod engine. I know I'm excited to be finally playing with one.
A little off topic but also in case some others are interested the 10rib blower pulley setup from the 2013 Cobra Jet is also available M-8511-M5010. So nearly everything from the CJ has made it to the catalog. From TB, oil pump, oil pan, heads, cams, intake, pulleys, springs, shocks, mass air etc. lol you name it there's a part number for it. There is only a handful of items that you can't get straight from FRPP but they can give you the Part# and where to buy it from if you like what you see.(well except for a few things that had to have been ordered before the set deadlines)
A little off topic but also in case some others are interested the 10rib blower pulley setup from the 2013 Cobra Jet is also available M-8511-M5010. So nearly everything from the CJ has made it to the catalog. From TB, oil pump, oil pan, heads, cams, intake, pulleys, springs, shocks, mass air etc. lol you name it there's a part number for it. There is only a handful of items that you can't get straight from FRPP but they can give you the Part# and where to buy it from if you like what you see.(well except for a few things that had to have been ordered before the set deadlines)
Last edited:
In the authoritative "roadrunner" article, the Ford engineers suggest that pushing 8000+ RPM is outside of the safe operating range for the roadrunner valvetrain. Also, the roadrunner valvetrain is an upgrade over the coyote valvetrain...so if you are planning to push the stock coyote to 8000+ RPM you are really begging for premature failure.
As for the strut tower brace. I've seen it all argued all sorts of ways. Even Ford can't seem to make up their minds if it's required or not lol. Some years it's there some years it's not back and forth. The other thing to think about is long term the flexing of thee strut towers with and with-out the brace. Does the extra flex make a significant difference in the car 5-10-15-20 years later. Does that matter to you if it does?
The Boss uses all the same valvetrain items as the standard GT except for springs and hollow valves. As stated in that article (IIRC) that was where they felt comfortable to warranty the engine and pass all the strict durability and NVH requirements. The stock 2013 cobra jet uses the factory pieces spun to ~8,300 and also passes a strict durability test. Once I have an issue or a failure I'll report back on my findings and at what RPM at which it started struggling.
Users who are viewing this thread
