Adrenalinowner I truly dont know what you have against Jim and JDM but that was totally uncalled for. In no way shape or form are we comparing the charts for power, they are two totally differant motors built for two total differant purposes. What we are doing is showing the diff where weak springs and not weak springs drop off. As Chim just stated even with ported Heads, Cams, and the Full Deal Built Motor his ALSO droped off where mine "use to".

You are right of course about everything else playing a part, but I'd bet my last breath of air if I had my old springs in this exact set up today the Power would drop off just like the original charts dropped off.
And fear not if something comes up I'll be sure and let everyone know.

 

JJ isn't allowed here anymore, remember?? It says "adrenalinowner" on that post if I read correctly...............

good luck this time Rob, but to me dyno numbers are ***** except for bragging rights....just my $.02 here

 

Yes, I have several spring compressor tools that compress the springs and locks in the down position so you can remove and replace the "retainer clips" with another tool that holds the retainer clips in position with a magnetic clip affair while the valve springs are being de-compressed. The tools enable you to change both springs on one cylinder in 15 minuets without any cuss words. So all eight cylinder's springs can be changed in two hours plus the time it takes to remove and replace the valve covers. If you also remove the battery and relay bracket it makes it a lot easier to remove the valve covers and have room to work on the passenger side valves. On the drivers side you will need to remove the TB and air cleaner and also remove the bolts that hold the power steering oil tank and hold it off to one side with a piece of twine.

At this time you will also need Ford’s spring compressor tool to remove and replace the followers, as the MP tool does not do that. If people start upgrading their valve springs I’ll design a tool that can be used to R&R the followers. So in the end there will be three tools. One to R&R the followers, a second to compress the springs and a third to hold the retainer clips.

Fast Specialties www.fastspecialties.com will be testing a stock block L in a few weeks so we will know how a stock L responds to a spring upgrade. BTW, Fast Specialties did the early spring testing for me and some of it at no charge to MP so they should get some credit in moving the valve spring issue forward.

Also in response to Rob’s last post I would like to come to his defense. Rob is absolutely correct. If the valve springs in JDM’s new engine were replaced with Rob’s old springs the engine would fall flat on its face and power would peak at 4700rpm just like his old engine however the absolute peak power would be higher then the stock headed one. A system is only a good as its weakest link and for the L the weak link is the valve springs.

Charles

 

Here's my dyno sheet with my mp setup including Johnny lightnings ported heads(full deal) ,comp stage IIs. Look familiar to Robs. Ive since had just my seat pressure raised by shimming,will post results soon to back up what Charles R@d has accomplished. Thanx Charles.
Jason

BTW:my #s are in SAE . In std they were 541hp 587tq

 

Looks like mine has to go back to JDM for some new fun stuff!
Thanks Rob, for bringing this to our attention.
Thanks Charles, for proving the theories.
Thanks JDM, for the willingness to learn and improve the product.
Jim

 

Stock long block? Kinda curious about that. Looking forward to seeing those results.

 

Hey Rob..I dont wanna hijack this thread...but I just wanted to know where you got your lightning sticker that goes over your FORD emblem on your front grill...
THANKS a lot..
Oh ...and congratulations on getting your baby up and runnin' again..
-Noah

 

Possibly a stupid question but if you replaced the stock springs, on a stock motor, with stiffer springs how detrimental would that be to wearing the lobes on the stock cams? I don’t know if the material used in the stock cams is the same as these aftermarket cams people talk about so just curious…

 

Stock followers are roller....so there is no wear problem and the engine will run great...I did this close to 4 years ago on stock cams....spring pressure was about a 100 lbs using the old ModMax springs.
Dale

 

Thanks Dale...

 

That's good info Charles. Thanks for the efforts you put into this...and of coarse thanks to the others that have also.


Now a question for Jim Jr. What springs are in my motor?

Rocks

 

it is JJ his first post was to argue with me... if he isnt allowed here why then is he on?? moderator anyone care to take care of that mishap??

 

dyno numbers are a tool. A very important one. If people are into compairing numbers to determine who get's to stand on the soap box, then yeah, they are for bragging rights.

It's no secret that dyno numbers can be altered in simple ways but let's face it.......if a tuner fudges a customers dyno numbers and his et's show it.......**** will hit the fan, no doubt.

Some people read way more into ****. There's nothing wrong with a guy posting dyno numbers. Don't look at the digets.....look at the graphs.

Rob is comparing the power drop offs. You can talk about all the head work he had done but let's face the facts here. He's making more power on this motor with LESS BOOST and LESS TIMING. Does the porting, head's and cams have somethign to do with it??? Yes.

But if the valves were still floating would be seeing these results???

No, we would not.

I think Rob would have seen alot of different things even if he just did valve springs on the stock heads on Sal's motor that was built.

It doesn't matter that some guys have run KB's on stock blocks and not have valve seat problems. That's SOME PEOPLE. We've discovered a very important scenario and that's what people need to focus on.

As far as Rob complaining about any problems with his new set up? Why should he? Rob never came out and blamed Sal for anything with all the problems that he had from the start. He only pointed fingers when the truck was towed from englishtown. We've already kicked this horse in determining who, what , where, why and how ..........was to blame for the failure. He spent the money to do it right this time because Jim wouldn't do it any other way. He shouldn't have problems and he should be happy. So far......seems all is good and he is happy.........the way he should have been in the first place. I don't think Rob owes anybody anything (well, except his credit card companies!!!) He's paid his dues so let's cut the crap and let him enjoy it.

Let's see all the doubters come up with excuses on how Rob is running the et's he's running. Or will Jim be accused of fixing the time slips too???

Some of you guys are just unbelievable. The tuner wars **** is played out. Start being happy for other members instead of trying to rain on the parade every post.!!!

 

I agree that Dyno #'s are just that, and to tell you the truth all I'm looking for are low 11's AT FIRST (which I dont see as a problem)
but I WILL eventually go for the number, and I already know I have what it takes, "when the time comes"

As for the quote I edited mine
I do have to apologize for that accusation, after clicking on adrenalinowner's name and looking at all his post (all "1" of them) and all his reply's ("all bashing JDM btw"), it's clear it's NOT JJ.

JJ has been nothing but good to me all through the years, we've been doing business since the day I bought my L and he's bent over backwards for me many times. We've always been friends and when I thought it was him "it hurt me" because I didnt expect that from him,
IT WASNT HIM AND HE WOULD'NT DO THAT TO ME. Sorry JJ if your listening

AND GET A FKING LIFE adrenalinowner (who ever the hell you REALLY are)

 

Rob,

I think it's safe to say that with your setup, you should be running low 11's without spray no problem.

You've always managed great 60' times on a stock convertor. With all this power and a stall......Wooooo Hoooooo!!!