• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

Who has used the NPG LIM Mod

F

fordman302

Hard-core CEG'er
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
1,660
Location
Cape Coral FL.
Just wanna here what eveyone that has used the NPG LIM mod thinks about it..Performance wise etc.
Since Joey hasnt got it to the dyno yet. What do you guys that are useing it think..
 
i have one on my 3L. functionality is precise and replicated well. i was never able to get on the dyno tho as i just got my car running well again:). As for numbers, i don't remember joey making a claim on major gains. i could be wrong.
 
With how many LIM's that Joey said he's sold, I'm surprised no one has dyno'd theirs. I'd like to see one (or more). I'm not looking for comparisons... I'll leave that up to Joey's mega dyno session. I am just curious about the general shape of the curves as kind of a teaser. First thing I'd do after swapping in a 3L would be getting on a dyno. :shrug:
 
BAD SVT said:
i have one on my 3L. functionality is precise and replicated well. i was never able to get on the dyno tho as i just got my car running well again:). As for numbers, i don't remember joey making a claim on major gains. i could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well is your Performance there..Your car dont feel Slugish?

IIRC when I talked to Joey on the phone he said he didnt think it would help Performance much or take away from it..Just make the swap alot easier..I could be wrong also.
 
Just brought brought one for my 3L. It make the 3l swap much easier if you want to keep the 2.5L uim. Seems to work good to me, still have good power thru out the powerband.
 
How could it improve or detract performance? It is simply the lower half of a oval port LIM and the top half of the split port intake LIM to aid in a motor swap. That way there is no drilling of the heads for the fuel injectors to mount up correctly.
 
69Boss302 said:
How could it improve or detract performance? It is simply the lower half of a oval port LIM and the top half of the split port intake LIM to aid in a motor swap. That way there is no drilling of the heads for the fuel injectors to mount up correctly.
Click to expand...

for one, if his measurments are off, we'll all have leaks:laugh:. but you might be right though. it seems reasonable to think that power gains shouldnt be expected. afterall, it's just replacing the stock LIM. i don't believe its bored larger or anything:shrug:
 
Here's why I think it would perform better than a ground head... at least above 3500 rpm.

1) The injector is in the proper location.
2) The conversion from split to oval is much more gradual... starting at the LIM entrance.
2.1) The conversion doesn't only happen within the first 1" of the head ports.
2.2) There *should* be more velocity with the gradual reduction, instead of the potential restriction from quickly changing the port size in the heads.
 
...How could it improve or detract performance?...

I agree with morbid on most of his points above IMRC engagement.

You still have the abrupt change in area/shape from the UIM dumping into the lower and the dead spot under the splitter. You still have the disturbed pressure gradient since the port shapes are different. You completely lose the effect of having IMRC below the opening point and I'm not sure on the effects on sound wave tuning but they have been upsetted by the loss of bifurcation of each runner.

I understand this is intended to make the swap easier for some folks by retaining the 2.5L UIM and is an improvement over the earlier plastic manifolds because of their design intent. I contest that it is any improvement over the revised 04'+ manifolds or ST220 though.
 
Last edited:
rac74 said:
...How could it improve or detract performance?...

I agree with morbid on most of his points above IMRC engagement.

You still have the abrupt change in area/shape from the UIM dumping into the lower and the dead spot under the splitter. You still have the disturbed pressure gradient since the port shapes are different. You completely lose the effect of having IMRC below the opening point and I'm not sure on the effects on sound wave tuning but they have been upsetted by the loss of bifurcation of each runner.

I understand this is intended to make the swap easier for some folks by retaining the 2.5L UIM and is an improvement over the earlier plastic manifolds because of their design intent. I contest that it is any improvement over the revised 04'+ manifolds or ST220 though.
Click to expand...

04 Taurus Manifolds have longer runners and not tapered at all like the ST220 manifold. The manifold that comes the closest to the St220 manifold is the escape manifolds and the VVT manifolds. The taurus will make great midrange power but will fall on its face up top just like the old dynos show on the full swaps. Remember guys we have alot of SVT UIM putting down 200+whp so if the manifold cannot support the 3 liter like many are argueing then why has there not been one full swap that has topped the SVT UIM numbers yet. Hopefully in one week and a few days we will show some numbers and i expect to see little differences but we will see. Joey
 
BurritaSVT said:
04 Taurus Manifolds have longer runners and not tapered at all like the ST220 manifold. The manifold that comes the closest to the St220 manifold is the escape manifolds and the VVT manifolds. The taurus will make great midrange power but will fall on its face up top just like the old dynos show on the full swaps. Remember guys we have alot of SVT UIM putting down 200+whp so if the manifold cannot support the 3 liter like many are argueing then why has there not been one full swap that has topped the SVT UIM numbers yet. Hopefully in one week and a few days we will show some numbers and i expect to see little differences but we will see. Joey
Click to expand...

Lengths are relatively the same by a quick look. The new 06'ish are the closest to ST220 re. runner shape which is the signifacant change since the early oval manifolds. They have progressively gotten better with development time as they should.

I'm not disputing whether it can support the engine or not (which is a mute argument unless you'd like to talk specifics) but the system is seriously flawed vs. an oval manifold of similar performance intent. Lets compare apples to apples instead of marketing here. It is a modification for quick and easy swaps (which you've said yourself) and offers benefits over earlier designs which I'm not disputing. Dom's full 3L's have consistantly layed down 200whp+ (3L cams) with minimal modifications with the revised manifolds. So there is your dyno 'proof.'

It's by far not the best as far as engineering sense and performance (and by this I'm not speaking of power figures alone) you might certainly agree?

I need some information on when your test session is and what manifolds you are testing as of now?
 
Last edited:
rac74 said:
Lengths are relatively the same by a quick look. The new 06'ish are the closest to ST220 re. runner shape which is the signifacant change since the early oval manifolds. They have progressively gotten better with development time as they should.

I'm not disputing whether it can support the engine or not (which is a mute argument unless you'd like to talk specifics) but the system is seriously flawed vs. an oval manifold of similar performance intent. Lets compare apples to apples instead of marketing here. It is a modification for quick and easy swaps (which you've said yourself) and offers benefits over earlier designs which I'm not disputing.

It's by far not the best as far as engineering sense and performance (and by this I'm not speaking of power figures alone) you might certainly agree?

When is your session and what manifolds are you testing as of now?
Click to expand...

2000 Taurus manifold
2004 Taurus Manifold
2004 Mazda 6 same as escape 04
1999 SVT Contour UIM w /LIM mOD
ST220 Manifold
65mm TB
SVT Spacer behind the TB to settle plenum debates on sizing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top