unpolire
CEG'er
Since the Contour SVT is FWD, is the additional weight of the 3.0L Duratec justified by the power/torque increase? Is the weight bias (front/rear) still acceptable? Handling/cornering/steering effort and feel all uncompromised?
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
conversion weight vs. power gain questions
- Thread starter unpolire
- Start date
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
The weight between a 2.5L and 3.0L is essentially the same, since they are basically the same motor. One just has a larger bore than the other.
Hell, if you get right down to it, the 3L is probably marginally lighter.
Tex
Hard-core CEG'er
The pistons shouldn't be as tall as the bore is deep, so yes slightly, but no not really.
I was driving around the yard at one of my freight buildings the other day, looking at paving repairs, and I was able to put my car on the axle scale. Loaded with a full tank of gas, driver, and some misc. stuff in the car, my front axle came in at 2300 lbs, and my rear at 1000 lbs, so 70/30 weight distribution. And that's with an ultra light CF hood and two tires in the trunk. :help:
unpolire
CEG'er
70/30!
70/30!
Holy cow! What is the stock figure? Surely SVT did not let a production vehicle leave the line with such front end bias? That's a lot of work for the front axles, steering, and brakes. I would feel more comfortable with the X-Type's AWD platform for greater balance.
70/30!
Holy cow! What is the stock figure? Surely SVT did not let a production vehicle leave the line with such front end bias? That's a lot of work for the front axles, steering, and brakes. I would feel more comfortable with the X-Type's AWD platform for greater balance.
iirc the gross vehicle weight for either axle was around 2,000 lbs iirc. I think there was a post about it at some point as I remember looking at the info tag on one of my cars for that into.
also i thought that fwd normally had a forward bias anyway? nature of the beast type of thing.
also i thought that fwd normally had a forward bias anyway? nature of the beast type of thing.
Dyoel182
Addicted CEG'er
FWD cars will always have a front bias but 70/30 isnt quite right. Maybe Edmunds has the official numbers.
Tex
Hard-core CEG'er
This is a certified scale, accurate to within 10 lbs. I'd trust that over some number from Edmunds, especially considering that my car is far from stock. The numbers surprised me too.
Dyoel182
Addicted CEG'er
I meant weight balance, not total weight. Those percentage numbers are published but its harder to find for an older car.
Tex
Hard-core CEG'er
I weighed it axle by axle.
I'm not quite sure what is so hard for you to understand here. I couldn't even fit the whole car on the pad. 2300+1000=3300 2300/3300=0.6969696 1000/3300=0.303030303 Therefore 70/30 distribution.Dyoel182
Addicted CEG'er
Its not that I dont understand what you did since I've done that myself, but 70/30 is an awful weight bias for a sports sedan so I'm looking for the official weight bias elsewhere.
steelblueSE
Hard-core CEG'er
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,737
IIRC the stock spread was about low 60's to high 30's.
Dyoel182
Addicted CEG'er
I just found some more official looking numbers that say Curb Weight 3075 and bias is 64/36.
Tex
Hard-core CEG'er
Remember, this car was not originally designed to be a "sports sedan."
Search on the forum. I know this has come up not so long ago, and most people's cars have actually weighed in at like 2800-2900, probably without driver.
Back to the original question....the trade off is DRASTICALLY in favor of the 3L install. There may even be no tradeoff as discussed. I have both a 3L and a 2.5L short block in my garage and I can pick either one up and move it by hand, so whatever difference is like whether you have groceries in the car or not!
MOST? no... SOME? sure.
MOST are freaking PIGS and were GROSSLY UNDERweighted by the reports.
AVG weights of 3100, 3150, or even 3200 have been seen.
63/37 and 64/36 have been(and still are) the "usual", "suggested" and widely adhered to distributions for Contour variant of the CDW-27 platform (with minor variations between atx/mtx and trim levels)
Whether or not your scale was accurate, or not, I won't even get in to.. There's no way for us to know and arguing that it wasn't would be as futile as arguing that these cars weighed 2800lbs..
Either way, you've got a heft of mods done to the front bumper, supports, or engine or you've removed the rear of the car from the gas tank back.
I don't know what caused your readings (be they accurate and odd, or inaccurate) but I know what the actual "average" is and your one-time weighing doesn't sway my views and history with more cars than I can count (both personally and through these forums)
Last edited:
Tex
Hard-core CEG'er
Yeah, I know that most official sources say 3100 lbs. I just remember a thread where a lot of people came in and said that their cars weighed a lot less than that.
Oh, certainly. I won't disagree with people saying that their car weighed less.. I believe that, for sure. but there's been an equal or greater number of people saying they were confused and their car was bloated (weighing in at 3100 or more!) My SVT (E1, stock, with gas, and driver) was something like 3175lbs.
My 99 is like 3250..... Of course, the turbo and intercooler (et al) don't help..
My 99 is like 3250..... Of course, the turbo and intercooler (et al) don't help..