Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
Dom, you said you had the .drf files for the curves you posted. Can you drop them back into WinPEP and post up the graph of both with hp and tq vs. rpm?
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
3liter vs hybrid vs COP revealed
- Thread starter BurritaSVT
- Start date
- Status
Dom, you said you had the .drf files for the curves you posted. Can you drop them back into WinPEP and post up the graph of both with hp and tq vs. rpm?
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
Absolutely, this is all rehashed from NECO an hour ago.
Anything else?
-Dom
Anything else?
-Dom
Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
I'd be interested to see any comparable data you have on other combinations. Also, if you wouldn't mind refreshing my memory, which intake manifold does the oval port 3L in that graph have? And what recalibration was done on both the hybrid and the full 3L for thier respective runs?
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
Here is all the data I have, the original sheets of his retune (which is used in the comparison) and mine.
I will point out the Hybrid in question is modified. 99 Cougar, 2004 3L block, Kinger PnP heads with 3L valves, 1999 3L aluminum split port LIM, Max EH SVT Upper Intake manifold, MSDS Headers, 19lb injectors and 75MM Pro-Flow MAF. It has a lightened flywheel, Centerforce clutch, Quaife and modified throttle body (honed) optimized I guess you would say. SCT chip and dyno tune.
The Contour motor: 2005 3.0L, full Sable dress - Nothing Escape on the engine at all (all Sable original parts). Engine mount installed from old motor (rear head removed and reinstalled). Return to returnless conversion, throttle body mod (easy way, no splicing or halving), custom EGR tube (factory 99 3L). SCT Chip and dyno tune. That's it. It has a crappy Spec Stage 1 clutch and no limited slip - Basically a stock car with $1300 invested in the motor.
His dyno sheets with A/F are below and mine.
-Dom
I will point out the Hybrid in question is modified. 99 Cougar, 2004 3L block, Kinger PnP heads with 3L valves, 1999 3L aluminum split port LIM, Max EH SVT Upper Intake manifold, MSDS Headers, 19lb injectors and 75MM Pro-Flow MAF. It has a lightened flywheel, Centerforce clutch, Quaife and modified throttle body (honed) optimized I guess you would say. SCT chip and dyno tune.
The Contour motor: 2005 3.0L, full Sable dress - Nothing Escape on the engine at all (all Sable original parts). Engine mount installed from old motor (rear head removed and reinstalled). Return to returnless conversion, throttle body mod (easy way, no splicing or halving), custom EGR tube (factory 99 3L). SCT Chip and dyno tune. That's it. It has a crappy Spec Stage 1 clutch and no limited slip - Basically a stock car with $1300 invested in the motor.
His dyno sheets with A/F are below and mine.
-Dom
Attachments
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
I will mention that on Wednesday the car that Todras saw at Terry's will be down here for dyno tuning. That means it will be on the same dyno so I can compare the graphs easily with the files. The car is more modified than mine (CAI, Headers, BAT Y-pipe, Exhaust). Should make for an interesting comparison to see one opened up. This will be on a 2004 Taurus motor with the same specs as mine (same returnless mod, throttle body mod, EGR tube...etc).
-Dom
-Dom
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
Now that the dust settled a bit I only was referring to the comments you made not me about the time comparison. I am not going to say that your COP will not do more than the 3 liter hyrbid because we are all here to make changes to see if we can step one more notch up to making more power along with usable torque.
I was simply stating just like everyone else here is that your dyno is really has not shown one improvement over a single three liter swap with SVT cams yet. Me and Tom have stock piles of dynos since Tom studies the engines from the Airflow charts in relation to the mods and power. If you can sit down and be more civil and quit getting personal then maybe this can be a useful civil discussion.
And Now I am sure you are about to say I came out and attacked you personally well needless to say I had no idea that you even existed since I never went to your site. But once you made yourself known I noticed you had been bashing every idea we had two months ago still on your site but worst of attacking our integrity for no reason at all. If you call me BS on this one I will dig up the post and paste them here.
It seems you always had a problem with us why I don't know and all it took was a little joke to get you in temper tandrem over nothing. But once you followed me over to NECO bashing our porjects and us personally I figured you came here looking for the friction you created all by yourself at your own site. Now put aside whatever issues you have with Me and Tom gives us raw data and we will provide you with the best comparison we have on a dyno in SAE not the inflated STD numbers too (usually) since we are allowing the correction factor to work it's magic.
I agree with you on most part but th engine being highly modified but when you are really only comparing three factors that are really different here.
One you are using the stock 3 liter cams, Oval port LIM, and UIM so from my standpoint we are really talking about the intake system really being superior over the other right?
Now the Kinger heads you are referring to is not really the bottle neck here it is the lower LIM since the cross area would be the smallest at this point riight?
The big complaint we have really been noticing or being mentioned by you is that the plenum volume is so much different that the intake flow is scavenging due to small volume. Well I would agree if I didn't see the 2.5 liter intakes which plenum is almost impossible to gut out to a larger volume has more than one hit numbers of 234 whp-240whp which no matter what cams or heads that was on the engine or how much rpms it was able to flow Xamount of cfm given over a period time to substain power through redline without dipping.
So how can you argue about the 2.5 liter intake built and designed by porshe we all know that was ahead of its time is being outflowed by the 3 liter engine. Heck the bigger plenum are usually meant to make more power up top than the smaller one. I would agree once you hit 300hp NA on these motors then I think the 3 liter intake will step up and show more potential because then the volume of the smaller SVT intake will not be able to supply the engine the air it needs to do so. But in order for all this to be true we would need the CR 12.5 adjustable cams race gas and turn it up to 8k rpms which no one here will ever do.
And once you get to 235whp NA you are now going to need FI to go further so now does it pay for anyone here to bring there car to any other place but there typical mechanic to do a easy swap either full 3 liter or just do a hyrbid w/LIM mod.
Oh I will assure you that I have a 80k motor sitting here that was going to be experimented for something else but now I will drop on my LIM mod and I will make a little gesture to say that it will hold the same torque down low and will definitly pass your SAE numbers up top. And your gutted cats are considered to be modified trust me we have test on the difference or less say dyno numbers.
I love challenges that is what drives me to develop new ideas once you achieve your highest number based on $$$ I will show you what we can do too. Let make this a little more interesting I am sure most will enjoy to see the outcome. We already have gutted cat 3 liter dyno to match up to your dyno now and we will even let you use the STD one.
I was simply stating just like everyone else here is that your dyno is really has not shown one improvement over a single three liter swap with SVT cams yet. Me and Tom have stock piles of dynos since Tom studies the engines from the Airflow charts in relation to the mods and power. If you can sit down and be more civil and quit getting personal then maybe this can be a useful civil discussion.
And Now I am sure you are about to say I came out and attacked you personally well needless to say I had no idea that you even existed since I never went to your site. But once you made yourself known I noticed you had been bashing every idea we had two months ago still on your site but worst of attacking our integrity for no reason at all. If you call me BS on this one I will dig up the post and paste them here.
It seems you always had a problem with us why I don't know and all it took was a little joke to get you in temper tandrem over nothing. But once you followed me over to NECO bashing our porjects and us personally I figured you came here looking for the friction you created all by yourself at your own site. Now put aside whatever issues you have with Me and Tom gives us raw data and we will provide you with the best comparison we have on a dyno in SAE not the inflated STD numbers too (usually) since we are allowing the correction factor to work it's magic.
I agree with you on most part but th engine being highly modified but when you are really only comparing three factors that are really different here.
One you are using the stock 3 liter cams, Oval port LIM, and UIM so from my standpoint we are really talking about the intake system really being superior over the other right?
Now the Kinger heads you are referring to is not really the bottle neck here it is the lower LIM since the cross area would be the smallest at this point riight?
The big complaint we have really been noticing or being mentioned by you is that the plenum volume is so much different that the intake flow is scavenging due to small volume. Well I would agree if I didn't see the 2.5 liter intakes which plenum is almost impossible to gut out to a larger volume has more than one hit numbers of 234 whp-240whp which no matter what cams or heads that was on the engine or how much rpms it was able to flow Xamount of cfm given over a period time to substain power through redline without dipping.
So how can you argue about the 2.5 liter intake built and designed by porshe we all know that was ahead of its time is being outflowed by the 3 liter engine. Heck the bigger plenum are usually meant to make more power up top than the smaller one. I would agree once you hit 300hp NA on these motors then I think the 3 liter intake will step up and show more potential because then the volume of the smaller SVT intake will not be able to supply the engine the air it needs to do so. But in order for all this to be true we would need the CR 12.5 adjustable cams race gas and turn it up to 8k rpms which no one here will ever do.
And once you get to 235whp NA you are now going to need FI to go further so now does it pay for anyone here to bring there car to any other place but there typical mechanic to do a easy swap either full 3 liter or just do a hyrbid w/LIM mod.
Oh I will assure you that I have a 80k motor sitting here that was going to be experimented for something else but now I will drop on my LIM mod and I will make a little gesture to say that it will hold the same torque down low and will definitly pass your SAE numbers up top. And your gutted cats are considered to be modified trust me we have test on the difference or less say dyno numbers.
I love challenges that is what drives me to develop new ideas once you achieve your highest number based on $$$ I will show you what we can do too. Let make this a little more interesting I am sure most will enjoy to see the outcome. We already have gutted cat 3 liter dyno to match up to your dyno now and we will even let you use the STD one.
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
No no no, you aren't backpeddling anywhere my friend. You made an open attack on me on TWO forums with bad information and you think you're going to sweet talk me now? I would do this in a PM, but you aren't getting that satisfaction.
Hasn't shown one improvement? I wasn't going for improvement, I was going for cost. The motor you are so centered around is STOCK! 2005 Sable, gutted precats and short ram intake. That's it! That's pretty much as stock as things get. You assumed I was trying to say they were better - Which depending on how you look at it from a cost/performance factor - It is.
Yes, I said your supercharger wouldn't fit under the hood of a Cougar. And I said "I" think your Oval to Split mod is silly and un needed. Yes, I did that. However when you and Tom started a war against me in 2 threads on 2 different forums - I would call that an outright attack. You don't have integrity - I don't see it. You clearly miss some of the principles in engine design and don't even understand a simple "dyno" graph. Reading, writing and arithmetic (you learned it in school right?) Use them. You're smoking gun was so useless you had to photoshop it so it made sense to you... That was priceless.
No, I had a problem with you. Don't collect the CEG into this. That's the problem with this site and some members - Attack one and you get the herd. That's fine, however all the one's like Y2K and TourDeForce that stepped up to mock without any clear information are just "flamebaiters". I didn't see any warnings to them - I receieved an infraction after I left the thread when Mark stepped in. You seem to think this is a forum wide thing - I followed you on NECO after the "joke" post and made it a point to show how silly your idea was. I did, you retorted back a bunch of useless and really un needed information. I understand your HP figures are your claim to fame - However I showed that highest HP isn't the quickest. Hasn't that "lesson" soaked into your brain yet?
Are you kidding me? This is a comparison between a bone stock 3.0L and a hybrid built like you guys pretty much recommend. That was the reason that owner went that way in the first place - Now he wishes he would've saved his money and went the other route. I think the whole test is relevant and the sheets show you data you nor Tom has ever seen before. Why don't you take this as a lesson and learn something from it. Stop with the pointless comparisons.
Look. You obviously have little understanding of everything. It's plainly obvious to people who know better. You may "dazzle" the herd with your nonsense - Not me. I don't need your recommendations - I will never get a car tuned by you or Tom much less ever install your product. It scares me to think you service a whole Contour community and are blind to certain practices that are common in the tuning community. Not only that, you preach about this and that like it's needed period - That is a lie. People need proper information to make a choice, not ideas jammed down their throat so you can benefit $$$ from it. Of course you and Tom are going to both attack me - You have a personal interest in all this. I don't. Do you see me selling anything here? You can have all your fun you want with the turbos and superchargers, but you entered a realm of competition with 3L swaps as there are many people who do them. Some hobby, some professionally (like me) and looking at your ideas... they are wacky. I like the part about no tuning with that Split port mod. Lets open a big chamber before the valves with 2 different velocity incoming air streams (with no secondaries) and 'ASSUME' it will all work well. Do you even have one of these installed for testing? Proof? I'm shaking my head right now to think you are speculating on a paper project that isn't even real yet.
I've seen what you can do. Post dyno graphs of other people's cars and then say they are superior. I posted all my own graphs from engine's I've built. I have a ton more, however they are not all related to the discussion at hand. Displaying them would be confusing to everyone, I need 2 graphs to make a point - Not a "shock and awe" raping other sites for graphs of cars you never touched. I really don't want to talk nuts and bolts with you at all. I don't feel you are at my level, furthermore you clearly don't want to learn anything so what's the point? So I can hear more of your good "ideas"? Lol, instead of drawings - Come out with something and then talk about it. I did... everything I've talked about is sitting in my garage or garages over the country and is within feet away from their owner. When you get to that point - Let me know.
-Dom
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
You want damning proof, here it is. If you are so concerned with the highest HP at the very top end (to rev the piss out of the motor) the straight 3L is killing it all the way through the middle rev range (over 2500RPM+). Your HP peak does not happen till 5300RPM where it pulls away from the straight 3L - But that's pointless - You are only in that gear for another 1,500RPM max - The straight engine already had one full 1000RPM increment to pull on you with more than 25HP. Does this not tell a different story?
-Dom
-Dom
Attachments
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Dude, YOUR time graph is inaccurate because the ovalport dyno run was started at a LATER RPM! This was the purpose of overlaying the graphs as a function of rpm to show you that you were not starting at the same place therefore there was no relevant comparison to time.
If you want to pull out a few seconds in your graph to compare to another few seconds, say to illustrate the rate of acceleration between 4000-5000rpm then you are going to have to show BOTH time and RPM on your graph.....neither of which you did.
Looking at your graph it appears to take you 4.4 seconds to accelerate from 3650-5200rpm. The hybrid takes 4.9seconds to do the same portion. That is the only time that ovalport is faster. from 5250 to redline it is about 5.5 seconds from the ovalport and 5.2 seconds for the hybrid.
Funny thing is they both accelerate about the same in the low range with hybrid having more rpm to cover since it started EARLIER in the rpm range, about 4 seconds.
In the long run it appears the cars would be a good race but the hybrid can actually hold out for higher rpm at higher torque, up to 7200 rpm or so and really make up a lot more time.
But if you would present your data in a proper manner in the first place you'd have got your point across better. I think what you are trying to say is that given the cost and (to you) ease of install you think the ovalport swap is the bang for the buck since it gives good if not similar performance.
I think that is a valid point.
warmonger
Hard-core CEG'er
Why is HP and area under the HP curve pointless? That engine could rev to 7200 rpm all day long safely and would make even more area under the curve and be faster but you limited the test to 6700rpm. So the test being constrained is designed to show off your motor.
Hell if I had a crack at tuning that motor, upping the rpm range and in general boosting the torque (assuming it isn't already fully tuned) then it would be even more potent.
Oh and the straight engine did NOT pull with 25hp more, it pulled for 4.5 seconds with about 10HP more....WTF you are claiming 25????!!!:shocked:
So ou have to at least admit 3 things:
-The hybrid has way more torque down low than your ovalport
-The hybrid has way more torque above 5200rpm than your ovalport
-The ovalport has a very narrow powerband.
Make it five points
- the ovalport is only stronger btween 4000-5000rpm....goes back to point number 3 above.
- The ovalport engine as tested was much cheaper to build by you(I could AND DID way back when, build a hybrid for the same price as yours and perform like that one)
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
elraido
I kant speel
Ok. I am sort of a noob at the whole 3.0L thing. Lets say my engine blows up (heads are good though) and I want to put one in my car. I want you guys to put it into laymans terms cost and performance differences between the two. Include labor at a shop into the price. Sell me your ideas as to why your engine is the best.....
Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
Ok, I'm a little confused here, WTF is actually being argued here?
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything WRONG with a drop in 3L swap. I think what is being said is, if you run an engine with cams designed for an automatic transmission application, you get hp/tq curves heavily biased to a single, mid-range rpm, which, holy crap, is exactly what we see on the full 3L drop-in.
The major issue I have here, is the belief that a time-based dyno plot comparison is a valid comparison. The number of variables that affect that are staggering, and it is NOT a reliable comparison. I have a lot of friends in the high performance engine world, including Jack Roush and a lot of his engineers, Ford Racing, as well as people at McLaren engines, and a number of smaller well respected racing shops, and not a one of them use time based curves to compare two different engines. Further, OEM's don't do it either, because its NOT reliable, even when the dyno is computer controlled, and its an engine dyno not a chassis dyno.
The full 3L drop in is certainly a valid option, and with its tq curve, I'm sure is a blast to tool around in on the street, which makes it a great option for those wanting that sort of output curve. but, if you line the two of them up at the dragstrip, assuming all else is equal, the simple fact that you will be running each gear out to redline, the setup with the SVT cams is clearly going to be applying more power pretty much throughout the race.
I also contend that we are showing too many variables at once here, and its confusing the results. I contend that the key differences between the two graphs (aside from the bump from the IMRCs, and the weaker low end performance of the 3L) is more cam choice related than intake manifold. Given the flow data I've seen at Ford, I would be very surprised if a later escape manifold (or ST220) with SVT cams wouldn't show even slightly better high rpm performance than the SVT manifold.
As a completely side note, what Tom did with the graph moving, is perfectly valid. The very definition of HP means that TQ will be equal at 5252 rpm as long as the scale is even. And since the cross only there, it means that even on a time based graph, 5252 rpm is easily identifiable, and shifting the mean of the graph makes it easy to compare a relative rpm to rpm time difference. Of course, the simple fact that its a time comparison makes it no better than the original anyway.
Dom, is all this pissing and moaning really about other people having different priorities than you in thier 3L swap and not coming to the same conclusion as to what combination of parts to run? Are you really pissing all over Joey because he's making parts to make it easier for people to put thier own 3L's together and because he chose to make different compromises to reach that end than you did? Or are you mad because someone else realized they could adapt the Ford returnless bits to an ealrier car too? I mean really, what are you so upset about? This sort of posturing is very typical of you . . . come in screaming and arguing about how something is the best, when its really about personal preference, and what aspects of performance one prefers for thier own car. It's like arguing whether blondes or brunettes are hotter . . .
I think we all recognize that you feel the Full 3L provides the best combinations of cost, simplicity and performance for you. Not everyone else agrees, because not everyone else sees the tradeoffs the same.
I don't think anyone is saying there is anything WRONG with a drop in 3L swap. I think what is being said is, if you run an engine with cams designed for an automatic transmission application, you get hp/tq curves heavily biased to a single, mid-range rpm, which, holy crap, is exactly what we see on the full 3L drop-in.
The major issue I have here, is the belief that a time-based dyno plot comparison is a valid comparison. The number of variables that affect that are staggering, and it is NOT a reliable comparison. I have a lot of friends in the high performance engine world, including Jack Roush and a lot of his engineers, Ford Racing, as well as people at McLaren engines, and a number of smaller well respected racing shops, and not a one of them use time based curves to compare two different engines. Further, OEM's don't do it either, because its NOT reliable, even when the dyno is computer controlled, and its an engine dyno not a chassis dyno.
The full 3L drop in is certainly a valid option, and with its tq curve, I'm sure is a blast to tool around in on the street, which makes it a great option for those wanting that sort of output curve. but, if you line the two of them up at the dragstrip, assuming all else is equal, the simple fact that you will be running each gear out to redline, the setup with the SVT cams is clearly going to be applying more power pretty much throughout the race.
I also contend that we are showing too many variables at once here, and its confusing the results. I contend that the key differences between the two graphs (aside from the bump from the IMRCs, and the weaker low end performance of the 3L) is more cam choice related than intake manifold. Given the flow data I've seen at Ford, I would be very surprised if a later escape manifold (or ST220) with SVT cams wouldn't show even slightly better high rpm performance than the SVT manifold.
As a completely side note, what Tom did with the graph moving, is perfectly valid. The very definition of HP means that TQ will be equal at 5252 rpm as long as the scale is even. And since the cross only there, it means that even on a time based graph, 5252 rpm is easily identifiable, and shifting the mean of the graph makes it easy to compare a relative rpm to rpm time difference. Of course, the simple fact that its a time comparison makes it no better than the original anyway.
Dom, is all this pissing and moaning really about other people having different priorities than you in thier 3L swap and not coming to the same conclusion as to what combination of parts to run? Are you really pissing all over Joey because he's making parts to make it easier for people to put thier own 3L's together and because he chose to make different compromises to reach that end than you did? Or are you mad because someone else realized they could adapt the Ford returnless bits to an ealrier car too? I mean really, what are you so upset about? This sort of posturing is very typical of you . . . come in screaming and arguing about how something is the best, when its really about personal preference, and what aspects of performance one prefers for thier own car. It's like arguing whether blondes or brunettes are hotter . . .
I think we all recognize that you feel the Full 3L provides the best combinations of cost, simplicity and performance for you. Not everyone else agrees, because not everyone else sees the tradeoffs the same.
BuckeyeSVT
CEG'er
Rara,
Email me (buckeyesvt@gmail.com) and I will explain everything to you in full detail. Obviously Warmonger completely misses the point time and time again and I can't think of any more ways to say it. If you'd like to have a decent, factual civil conversation of email I am all ears. This forum posting back and forth is getting tiring between 2 different sites.
Perhaps when we are done, you can come back and explain all this to everyone. I'm really finding it hard to do so.
-Dom
Email me (buckeyesvt@gmail.com) and I will explain everything to you in full detail. Obviously Warmonger completely misses the point time and time again and I can't think of any more ways to say it. If you'd like to have a decent, factual civil conversation of email I am all ears. This forum posting back and forth is getting tiring between 2 different sites.
Perhaps when we are done, you can come back and explain all this to everyone. I'm really finding it hard to do so.
-Dom
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
Ok so lets be fair here we already know the SVT and 3 liter cannot be comapred since the SVT is designed for the person who want to race and if you want the show floor model of the taurus then just put it in still makes more power then the stock engines in our car. I asked you to put a dyno plot with speed which is more accurate since the tires are different ebough to give you a false impression of the time zone stuff where the engine was neve meant to cruise at period. Please show me the speed dyno I can critique it for you or send me the raw file so I can once again take it out of the STD too.
The big point is really no the hybrid but it is the full 3 liter swap here the numbers you have shown was no improvement over the 2003 taurus block in performance and we even discusssed that the coils' voltage output will suffer if you put them in series since I hope you know how resistance decrease drops voltages on coils which means the spark will to weak to support boosted applications. And if you went the parrell way the best in my opinion since we are maintaining the spark if not more but will overload the PCM drivers quicker due to the increase load demand to drive the coils. If you built your own coil driver on a circuit board then forgive me for mentioning this again.
So is it worth these guys buying a harness from you when all they have to do is just swap the engine 2000-2003 and just modify the fuel system like you and the EGR, TB and harness change for less money since you are adding a expense up top to patch up a COP harness for what gains none I can see so far since the mechanical aspects of the motor are identical. I rather use my money for a nice tune than buy a harness to use different coil ( my opionion)
And I can buy my fuel system mod different from yours may I add for $99 shipped their door. Curiuos at what you are selling your fuel system mod for might be a good idea to let people know first how much your system cost total price buying all your stuff for the same results of any full swap.
I do not find you at all a threat to me like you said before because two parts I sell for the 3 liter swaps is not the bread and dough for our company. I am just offering assistance to the guys who are need to upgrade but I am not convinced YET (who knows what the future brings) that the COP is any better for $$ or even better period. joey
The big point is really no the hybrid but it is the full 3 liter swap here the numbers you have shown was no improvement over the 2003 taurus block in performance and we even discusssed that the coils' voltage output will suffer if you put them in series since I hope you know how resistance decrease drops voltages on coils which means the spark will to weak to support boosted applications. And if you went the parrell way the best in my opinion since we are maintaining the spark if not more but will overload the PCM drivers quicker due to the increase load demand to drive the coils. If you built your own coil driver on a circuit board then forgive me for mentioning this again.
So is it worth these guys buying a harness from you when all they have to do is just swap the engine 2000-2003 and just modify the fuel system like you and the EGR, TB and harness change for less money since you are adding a expense up top to patch up a COP harness for what gains none I can see so far since the mechanical aspects of the motor are identical. I rather use my money for a nice tune than buy a harness to use different coil ( my opionion)
And I can buy my fuel system mod different from yours may I add for $99 shipped their door. Curiuos at what you are selling your fuel system mod for might be a good idea to let people know first how much your system cost total price buying all your stuff for the same results of any full swap.
I do not find you at all a threat to me like you said before because two parts I sell for the 3 liter swaps is not the bread and dough for our company. I am just offering assistance to the guys who are need to upgrade but I am not convinced YET (who knows what the future brings) that the COP is any better for $$ or even better period. joey
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
BAD SVT
Addicted CEG'er
WOW! For a noob like me, this is too much to take in. i spent all morning reading thru this forum. really informative i gatta say. Am assuming the present "break" in posts is joey, tom, rara, buck n co squaring things with each other before lettin us know the results of their findings and civil research, right? Cos i wanna see where this goes. Could matter less to me anyway, as i already got an escape motor. Would just be educative to see where this debate goes 
Last edited:
TourDeForce
Hard-core CEG'er
How TF did I get pulled into the 'Mock' category???
All I did was defend the SVT parts as not being obsolete and designed for a different car & different type of performance. I flat out welcomed a new approach...
All I did was defend the SVT parts as not being obsolete and designed for a different car & different type of performance. I flat out welcomed a new approach...
TRicker
Hard-core CEG'er
My Hybrid port setup (SVT intakes mated to 3L heads) cost me way less than 2500 dollars because i ported it myself.
ask blackcoog for a dyno graph.
he ported his heads himself and made 225 WHP. no machine shop work, just in garage stuff. no mating EGR crap, no TB bracket mods, no Wiring harness hackjob, just a clean hybrid port 3L.
i have the same setup as blackcoog and most of the CEG'ers around here and here's the shakedown of my costs.
2003 Taurus 3L block
400$
LIM gaskets, UIM Gaskets, Exh. manifold gaskets, Spark Plugs, TB gasket, EGR gasket, timing cover gaskets, Valve cover gaskets, trans fluid, oil, coolant, power steering fluid, brake fluid, and a short serpentine belt for the AC delete, and a couple bolts i needed cost me about 200$ or so. i got a good discount though from tousley ford here in MN.
i had headers and a full exhaust, an intake, and a couple other things to bolt up at the time i did the swap.
so i'm sitting about 600$ into my swap, and i bet i make as much power as those dyno sheets show. plus it's ported very nicely (i have some experience in porting so i guess i'm above the average guy but still)
so where is your argument? the only hard part about doing the swap the way that we do it now is cutting off two tabs, matching intake ports, and re-wiring a two wire knock sensor.
our way is better. blegh.
ask blackcoog for a dyno graph.
he ported his heads himself and made 225 WHP. no machine shop work, just in garage stuff. no mating EGR crap, no TB bracket mods, no Wiring harness hackjob, just a clean hybrid port 3L.
i have the same setup as blackcoog and most of the CEG'ers around here and here's the shakedown of my costs.
2003 Taurus 3L block
400$
LIM gaskets, UIM Gaskets, Exh. manifold gaskets, Spark Plugs, TB gasket, EGR gasket, timing cover gaskets, Valve cover gaskets, trans fluid, oil, coolant, power steering fluid, brake fluid, and a short serpentine belt for the AC delete, and a couple bolts i needed cost me about 200$ or so. i got a good discount though from tousley ford here in MN.
i had headers and a full exhaust, an intake, and a couple other things to bolt up at the time i did the swap.
so i'm sitting about 600$ into my swap, and i bet i make as much power as those dyno sheets show. plus it's ported very nicely (i have some experience in porting so i guess i'm above the average guy but still)
so where is your argument? the only hard part about doing the swap the way that we do it now is cutting off two tabs, matching intake ports, and re-wiring a two wire knock sensor.
our way is better. blegh.
BigBEN
Hard-core CEG'er
Get Over yourself Buckhole!!! What makes you think you are the most knowledgable person on here? Just because you own a shop or what not you think you can go around and tell everyone they are wrong and just argue with them not stop about foolish things....Real mature. Why dont you get some legit proof and stop beating around the bush? I have read all of the threads between Tom and Joey and yourself and you just sound like an idiot in all of them. Stop the nonsense and let Tom and Joey continue their business without having to deal with your bs!
Edit: Tricker has some good points! nice work...
Edit: Tricker has some good points! nice work...
Last edited:
- Status