Fp green 73hta
Jun 28, 2009, 01:18 PM
#7
There is already a review on it and this is the 4th thread I have seen about it. It dies up top a little compared to a Red and spools only slightly faster, but it appears to make more than enough added torque to make up for it.
Here is a link to the first review...where he ended up blowing his engine
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ftlbs-e85.html
Here is a link to the first review...where he ended up blowing his engine
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ftlbs-e85.html
Trending Topics
Jun 28, 2009, 01:23 PM
#8
There is already a review on it and this is the 4th thread I have seen about it. It dies up top a little compared to a Red and spools only slightly faster, but it appears to make more than enough added torque to make up for it.
Here is a link to the first review...where he ended up blowing his engine
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ftlbs-e85.html
Here is a link to the first review...where he ended up blowing his engine
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ftlbs-e85.html
Jun 28, 2009, 01:36 PM
#10
Well on a built block it does, but on a stock block, I agree. Everyone worries about how much WHP they can run on a stock bottom end, but what they should be worried about is torque.
Also, I am going to try to get the runfile to compre straight up against my Red run file on E85 because to be honest, the spool doesn't look any better than my red and in fact, it looks like it spools later. Its odd
Also, I am going to try to get the runfile to compre straight up against my Red run file on E85 because to be honest, the spool doesn't look any better than my red and in fact, it looks like it spools later. Its odd
Jun 28, 2009, 02:01 PM
#12
Agreed, which is why it seems odd to me. As for power, who knows how aggressive they were with timing. I had my tuner go very conservative since I am running a stock bottom end right now so comparing the runs for power won't mean as much, but that boost comparison will be interesting.
We'll see if they share it with me since their won't be any proprietary info there and I'm not asking for the map
We'll see if they share it with me since their won't be any proprietary info there and I'm not asking for the map
Jul 12, 2009, 12:13 PM
#14
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Trinidad, W.I.
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
con-rod bolts. The con-rod bolts usually fail FIRST! They usually STRETCH... BEND... and then SHEAR... Then con-rod bends/breaks... Bye bye engine!
IMHO if you're running a stock block with output in excess of 350 WTQ, upgrade OEM con-rod bolts to ARP bolts... BTW upgrade OEM cylinder head bolts to ARP head studs too.
Use Stretch Gauge (if available) when installing con-rod bolts... if unavailable, at least use good torque wrench.
NB---> ALWAYS "chase" (clean) cylinder block bolt holes with the correct "chasing tap" FIRST
...... (and blow out any shavings left too) before installing the ARP head studs.
NB---> ALWAYS use ARP Assembly Lube on studs... DO NOT USE OIL!
FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS:
Screw in studs "hand tight." Follow torque instructions for head studs...
This might help... Link--> 4G63 TUNING: Compatible Upgrade Alternatives - #1.
My $0.02¢
Last edited by nix; Jul 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM.
Jul 12, 2009, 02:00 PM
#15
Agreed, which is why it seems odd to me. As for power, who knows how aggressive they were with timing. I had my tuner go very conservative since I am running a stock bottom end right now so comparing the runs for power won't mean as much, but that boost comparison will be interesting.
We'll see if they share it with me since their won't be any proprietary info there and I'm not asking for the map
We'll see if they share it with me since their won't be any proprietary info there and I'm not asking for the map