Works 140 Progress Update
#48
Originally posted by Jay Lincoln
I know of one of the prototype Works 140's out here. On a stock 99 motor, it conservatively made 441 RWHP.
The real impressive thing, is that number was made with no increase in pulley size. It had a stock bottom pulley and the standard size Works pulley. It's making about 15 lbs of boost.
This blower is very efficient.
I know of one of the prototype Works 140's out here. On a stock 99 motor, it conservatively made 441 RWHP.
The real impressive thing, is that number was made with no increase in pulley size. It had a stock bottom pulley and the standard size Works pulley. It's making about 15 lbs of boost.
This blower is very efficient.
Plus, it seems like the blower could be swapped back out fairly easily for warranty work, right?
#49
Originally posted by captainoblivious
. . . I think one of the things that Tim is getting to is with these newer more efficient blowers, how far can we push the stock blocks before we are forced into the built engine? . . .
. . . I think one of the things that Tim is getting to is with these newer more efficient blowers, how far can we push the stock blocks before we are forced into the built engine? . . .
The question is: How much safer is the twin screw (a true compressor) on a stock block at sane boost levels? Can I run 15 PSIG on a stock block (and with the stock chip) without fear of detonation?
If so, I'd spent that $3,000 in a New York minute.
#51
Sal, can the #4 spark plug be changed with the upper intake on the Works 140?
The 99 prototype I saw in Southern California recently looks like a great setup, but with that upper intake there was no access to the #4 coil and plug and fuel injector.
Does the upper intake have to be removed for complete plug removal?
The 99 prototype I saw in Southern California recently looks like a great setup, but with that upper intake there was no access to the #4 coil and plug and fuel injector.
Does the upper intake have to be removed for complete plug removal?
#52
As of right now, yes. But that's the sacrifice to be made for the proper airflow for the rear inlet. It's really not as big of a pain as it seems. The blower is easily removed if need be, and you can just unbolt it and swing it to the side to change that plug. I think Works is working on a revised intake for the future that helps with that issue, but I don't have the details on that.
EDIT: Actually I was told that you can get the #4 plug out without blower removal, and that it has been done. It's a tight fit, but it can be done.
EDIT: Actually I was told that you can get the #4 plug out without blower removal, and that it has been done. It's a tight fit, but it can be done.
Last edited by LightningTuner; 01-06-2003 at 12:10 AM.
#53
I'm with tim here. I'm very wary of modifying the truck with pulleys and chips, and a more efficient blower just makes too much sense to ignore. With a works 140 at a safe psi (lets say 12 or 13)
I would love to be able to have a setup like that, without a chip (that takes away the flexibility of the unchipped PCM) and easily push the truck into the magical 400/500, or maybe even 450/550 with relatively low risk. I would much rather spend 3K on this than 600 or so on the classic "chip filter pulley", which comes with the risk of having a tank of bad gas, or a sudden change in weather, and getting a block ventilator free!
I would love to be able to have a setup like that, without a chip (that takes away the flexibility of the unchipped PCM) and easily push the truck into the magical 400/500, or maybe even 450/550 with relatively low risk. I would much rather spend 3K on this than 600 or so on the classic "chip filter pulley", which comes with the risk of having a tank of bad gas, or a sudden change in weather, and getting a block ventilator free!
#54
You guys are nuts to even think of running 13 to 15 lbs. of boost without any way to tune it. And what does bad gas have to do with a chip? Your truck can be tuned to be way safer and have more hp with a chip. Don't take my word for it, ask Sal since he started this thread. 15 lbs. is one hell of a lot of boost! With a chip you can calm it down so it will (hopefully) live. If it detonates it will go boom with or without a chip. A chip from a tuner that knows these trucks is probably the best mod you can do. Way better than any blower! What good is having all of these mods if you have no way to tune your truck. Trust me, no tuner wants to hear of any Lightning blowing up. They want to be on the safe side. We are the problem, we keep asking them for more! They give us more and we are happy for about two weeks then we are back begging for more power. It isn't the chip, it is us. The chip just gives us the means to go off the deep end. If you still do not want to put a chip in it, drive it easy after you up the boost until you can put it on a dyno and check to see that everything is ok. You would not put an engine together without checking clearances, so why would you run it without any way to tune it. Skip
#55
sound?
I know I've asked before but I dont think I've ever gotten a good answer.... what does the works blower sound like? I'd hate to give up the Lightning's signature sound, even if it means more power. Can anyone who's seen this blower describe what it sounds like? I've heard a KB and that rattle-trap always sounds like its about to fall apart
#56
Sal,
What a curve! Well done.
I agree with Skip. Ford safe-tuned the truck for 10 lbs. boost. If you up the boost you're out of the "safe tune" parameters.
I don't agree with the economic premise by some that a blower kit will be cheaper than chip, pulley etc. to 15 psi. Last time I looked at the new blowers it would be over $3k plus. 2 way chip, pulley and plugs to about 15 psi is a lot less. The new blower may be safer and more efficient but it won't be cheaper. Oh yeah, we'll have to wait and see how many new blower guys blow plugs or rods.
What a curve! Well done.
Originally posted by Skip
You guys are nuts to even think of running 13 to 15 lbs. of boost without any way to tune it.
You guys are nuts to even think of running 13 to 15 lbs. of boost without any way to tune it.
I don't agree with the economic premise by some that a blower kit will be cheaper than chip, pulley etc. to 15 psi. Last time I looked at the new blowers it would be over $3k plus. 2 way chip, pulley and plugs to about 15 psi is a lot less. The new blower may be safer and more efficient but it won't be cheaper. Oh yeah, we'll have to wait and see how many new blower guys blow plugs or rods.
#57
#58
Re: Works 140 Progress Update
Originally posted by LightningTuner
As you can see from the dyno, the truck made 556rwhp, and 583rwtq. This is at ONLY 19 psi! Also notice how high the torque stays up through the rpm range.
http://209.25.194.146/dyno99.jpg
As you can see from the dyno, the truck made 556rwhp, and 583rwtq. This is at ONLY 19 psi! Also notice how high the torque stays up through the rpm range.
http://209.25.194.146/dyno99.jpg
I don't know if you caught this or not; so, here goes. Every dyno I've seen for these trucks, has had the torque numbers closer to 700 lbs/ft, when the HP numbers are this close to 600. Is this not true with the twin screw SC? Can someone explain why the numbers are so close here? Does this truck have 4 valve heads or something. You'd think that a 2 valve head engine would make more torque than that, at that hp level.
#59
kenne bell #s on stock bottem end
I read where some guys were asking about #s on a stock bottem end truck. My truck has a stock bottem end with a kenne bell. It has no mods to the heads or exhaust at all, it made 460 rwhp on Danny Swansons dyno. I made those #s with only 15 #s of boost. I have a filter, throttle body, and chip and that is it besides the kenne bell.
#60
Well, I've never seen dnyo numbers from a truck that layed down 600/700 numbers
But your question is valid, usually torque is proportionally higher. As I mentioned in the other post, this truck was squeezed in unscheduled on the dyno, so there wasn't much tuning done on it. The A/F was too lean on the bottom end, which is why the torque is lower than expected. Once it gets fattened back up, the truck should make well over 600ftlbs .
But your question is valid, usually torque is proportionally higher. As I mentioned in the other post, this truck was squeezed in unscheduled on the dyno, so there wasn't much tuning done on it. The A/F was too lean on the bottom end, which is why the torque is lower than expected. Once it gets fattened back up, the truck should make well over 600ftlbs .