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

    You can register to join the community.

intake test dyno

Joey I can't thank you enough for all of your research and hard work.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a newb to the duratec motor and all it's nuances. With that said the information you are providing is priceless to me and to everyone who's going to be doing a 3L swap.

Bottom line we are trying to get every once of whp out of these motors N/A with the 3L swaps. The Data you provide lets us determine how we would like to proceed and it's cost effectiveness.

Use or Sell the SVT UIM = $$
Use or sell the SVT cams = $$
Port or not to port = $$
Your data = Priceless
​
 
turbo_fox said:
How do you explain the performance being seen by ported 3L such as demon? He is using the split port on the 3L heads, and I would say is having good results. Besides, it might not be only the performance that people are after. I wanted to retain the factory look, so I went with the ported 3L without using the proper heads, as you call them. if I sacrifice 10 hp but still have a stock looking engine I am fine with it.

I find it funny that he didn't even test a ported 3L and you are jumping all over it like it's so bad, there is more to the decision than dyno numbers.
Click to expand...

I thought one of the dyno pulls was with the SVT UIM/LIM? Either way both setups put down good numbers.

Demon hasn't dyno'd his SVT which is a shame because I really want to know what he puts down with all that work he has done to the car. But I have heard he is one hell of a driver. FYI if you are wondering what a 3L with ported heads would do look at Starjammir's numbers he put down 220hp and 199tq at the wheels I believe. His hybrid is on my list of 3Ls to beat on the dyno ;) which I know I have my work cut out for me.

I think it all boils down to preference. Yeah I like the stock look of the SVT UIM and must say I was pretty against going with a 3L UIM but after having two my arm has been twisted so to speak.

Aaron
 
BurritaSVT said:
Easy on the shallow comments I am the one who spent over $1000 on this for the community and I am the firsts to say I was wrong but we will even go further and make better setups for everyone to know. I never claimed it will mnake you power I only said it makes it easier plus we didn't even add timing to the figures since the airflow was slower which meant we could have added more timing to make up for the VE. I will do some more test but please don't start the bashing again or I will ditch the experments because it does not benefit me one bit to do it plus I could have lied and kept the results secret. Joey
Click to expand...

Joey,
You never claimed it will make more power? LOL... I recall plenty of threads along with your prediction list of how the outcome of the dyno tests were going to be...

I never bashed or was bashing. I tried to explain my view according the basic engine theories and you went on to disapprove them all...

I am happy that you are looking to make better setups for everyone thats what I was trying to do when you thought I was bashing you this entire time and not wanting to listen to anyone but your own thoughts and views...
 
i think honestly it just comes down to preference. some people might prefer that the powerband continues further up. snob's appears to die off up top,were as most ported 3L/svt manifolds & cam's i've seen contiune to pull to or past 7k:shrug: i dont see why anyone should jump down anyone else's neck
 
SVT SNOB said:
I thought one of the dyno pulls was with the SVT UIM/LIM? Either way both setups put down good numbers.

Demon hasn't dyno'd his SVT which is a shame because I really want to know what he puts down with all that work he has done to the car. But I have heard he is one hell of a driver. FYI if you are wondering what a 3L with ported heads would do look at Starjammir's numbers he put down 220hp and 199tq at the wheels I believe. His hybrid is on my list of 3Ls to beat on the dyno ;) which I know I have my work cut out for me.

I think it all boils down to preference. Yeah I like the stock look of the SVT UIM and must say I was pretty against going with a 3L UIM but after having two my arm has been twisted so to speak.

Aaron
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he used the NPG LIM, not a stock SVT, since he would have had to do some porting to make the svt LIM work
 
turbo_fox said:
How do you explain the performance being seen by ported 3L such as demon? He is using the split port on the 3L heads, and I would say is having good results. Besides, it might not be only the performance that people are after. I wanted to retain the factory look, so I went with the ported 3L without using the proper heads, as you call them. if I sacrifice 10 hp but still have a stock looking engine I am fine with it.

I find it funny that he didn't even test a ported 3L and you are jumping all over it like it's so bad, there is more to the decision than dyno numbers.
Click to expand...

Well I guess people have their own preference for a 3L swap but mine was more power...
What is the performance that is seen for a ported 3L such as Demons? Just a 1/4 mile time you are basing this on and telling me that its more than a dyno number to be looked at... Just so you know I didn't base anything on a dyno number as you might think, there are basic things in physics and fluid dynamics that can be applied to internal combustion engines and there are a plenty of basic calculations for calculating pretty much everything...

Have you ever thought that you can also port the oval port 3L cleaning up the factory casting and adding or removing material where needed to optimize for whatever powerband you might want to gain more power?
 
95pgt-t said:
i think honestly it just comes down to preference. some people might prefer that the powerband continues further up. snob's appears to die off up top,were as most ported 3L/svt manifolds & cam's i've seen contiune to pull to or past 7k:shrug: i dont see why anyone should jump down anyone else's neck
Click to expand...

Go and take a look at that dynograph once more...
 
96BlackSE said:
Well I guess people have their own preference for a 3L swap but mine was more power...
What is the performance that is seen for a ported 3L such as Demons? Just a 1/4 mile time you are basing this on and telling me that its more than a dyno number to be looked at... Just so you know I didn't base anything on a dyno number as you might think, there are basic things in physics and fluid dynamics that can be applied to internal combustion engines and there are a plenty of basic calculations for calculating pretty much everything...

Have you ever thought that you can also port the oval port 3L cleaning up the factory casting and adding or removing material where needed to optimize for whatever powerband you might want to gain more power?
Click to expand...

I was only using demon as an example. Besides, if I could only take on measure to determine a cars power, I would take trap speed, and demon has a pretty damn good trap speed.

By more than dyno numbers, I was talking about things such as part availability, looks, ease of installation, etc. I had a 3L long block, no intakes. I decided to do a ported 3L based upon the fact that I had SVT parts and no 3L parts, I like the SVT intake look, I like the fact that I don't have to change anything but the intake ports on the heads. I understand the engineering behind what you are saying(being that I am a mechanical engineer), and I fully agree with you on a lot of it, all I am saying is that to many people, the hard numbers aren't all that is important.
I've played the numbers game with my mustang, and frankly, didn't want to go down that road again. If you were after peak power, that's fine, I am not. If that was my concern, I would have probably not done a ported 3L.

I came into the this thread to look at what kind of numbers each intake was getting because I was curious, it isn't going to change my mind what I am doing. Plus, like I said already, he didn't even test a port matched 3L anyway.
 
I don't understand how the 'ported' (ie. hogged, bastardized port) is going to make it any better? Need to understand port/manifold theory and dynamics and you'll realize how flawed it is.
 
I only stated that I think the LIM MOD will not loose power against the porting of the heads and I also was wondering why the SVT UIM still holds the best numbers today the test was to see what manifold does better on the 2004 Taurus cams but in order to make the test complete I will need to do one more test with SVT cams to see how the cams changes the power bands on the oval ports. The biggest arguements was that the SVT cams were not compabable with the oval port because they were made for split ports. Well as we can see so far that the SVT cams makes 10% more power but he alos has headers and better exhaust than my stocker had none. I was impressed that a stock motor would put down anything over 190whp meaning the motor is producing 225hp which is 25hp over stock taurus setup. Then you see the dynos Aaron has made 50hp over the stock taurus motor.

The part that puzzles me is how the SVT UIM is the UIM was to small then how did it generate more torque over 6.5k than the taurus oval port when the top should be where the restriction should be more known. I am thinking the turbulance in the ports is slowing down the airflow at midrange and the more the rpms go up it start to streamline more with less swirl. Maybe with SVT cams the top will continue to gain over 6.5k more due to the unequal length headers.

It the end who know I may take the best attributes of all the setups and make a real good equal length UIM with made of SS. If we can make more power and be a direct swap I think we can make some good intakes for the people who want NA cars.

I personally enjoy making new products for power, looks, or for the ease of installation you must decide which one is best for you. Joey
 
some of you guys defend this :censored::censored::censored::censored: like someone's attacking your religion or political opinions...settle down for christ's sake:rolleyes: its a engine,and like the two things i mentioned,everyone has their own views and takes on it. bottom line is they both make more power than a 2.5 w/full bolt on's. and they're also w/in a few hp of the other....so really,why get a fluffed up about it:shrug:
 
Joey, I'd like to say thanks for all the work you've done.
This test is the first real data from a back-to-back test I've seen and it is much appreciated (as is the CAI I can't wait to install).
I am looking forward to seeing the SVT cam test.
I have a low-mile car and would like to do a 3L swap but I would only do it with the SVT upper for resale/originality.
Black96SE: I agree with many of the things you've said, but I am reserving my opinion until I see the SVT cam data (hopefully with a ported SVT upper/ST220). If you look at the graphs so far, the full 3L will be much better on the street due to the mid-range. However, the SVT manifold holds power longer and combined with SVT cams, UIM porting, headers and a cat back (the way I'd do a 3L swap), I feel it would be the combination I'm looking for (most average power from 5500-7000+, which is the range I'd use for max acceleration).
Also, you are commenting on the engineering behind the development of the 3L designs and although I agree for the most part, the design criteria (most important to an engineering project right?) is more than just a 20% size change. The SVT is designed around a lightweight, high-reving MTX compared to much heavier, lower-reving ATX vechicles the 3L parts were designed for.
We can agree to disagree, but I'm waiting to see the SVT cam test.
I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong, but we will see.
-J
 
a bits been going on here. wow. the reason i brought up the svt cams is that joey and i already talked about it. theoretically we believed the svt cams would do better regardless of intake. i honestly thought the experiment we talked about is what he performed. my mistake. i'd personally like to see the results too.
 
You've got very little to stand on here....

...The biggest arguements was that the SVT cams were not compabable with the oval port because they were made for split ports. Well as we can see so far that the SVT cams makes 10% more power...

They're really not. All they do is shift the powerband up higher and loose the low and mid speed areas. Yes, that's a compromise with cam design but when you use the SVT cams with fully function IMRC on a TWIN PORT head you regain the lowend through the twin port IMRC design. No brainer, that's what it was engineered for! So I ask, why ruin a good oval port head for absolutley nothing? Certainly all the cost and time could be better spent on a good EWP?

...The part that puzzles me is how the SVT UIM is the UIM was to small then how did it generate more torque over 6.5k than the taurus oval port when the top should be where the restriction should be more known. I am thinking the turbulance in the ports is slowing down the airflow at midrange and the more the rpms go up it start to streamline more with less swirl. Maybe with SVT cams the top will continue to gain over 6.5k more due to the unequal length headers...

Airspeed goes up with RPM so turbulence is higher. No brainer there...Swirl at this junction is inhibative to airflow. I guess you're referring to mixture motion in the chamber which is dictated by port shape towards the end, valve seat angles, etc... That marginal increase in TQ past 6500RPM is not going to make up for what it lacks for over 1000RPM. But the engine stays at 6500RPM constantly, right? Sure, sell that useless peak HP...

Compared to the escape it may hold the same TQ levels for 1-200RPM on then fall at the same rate as the others. It's not going to make a bit of difference. Why bother? $325 for a LIM then another $300 plus for EH just to get back on par? No brainer there...
 
rac74 said:
Don't confuse the issue here, TWIN PORT HEADS. Ditch the junk 2.5L UIM and fit the 3L like the OEM did.
Click to expand...

i see what u're saying. sorry, i happen to prefer the svt UIM look:). besides, like it's been said... the difference b/w these setups is small. it becomes a matter of preference. HOWEVER, i would still like to know which setup develops the most power.
 
We're debating performance here, not looks. There is substantial performance gains when using the the right manifold as illustrated by his graphs. 3-6% increase in TQ over a broad range which is substantial no matter what it seems like. If people are concerned with 7K+ performance then using the Escape manifold will hold TQ at the same rate and magnitude as the SVT but makes significantly more midrange that is used to accelerate the engine to peak HP anyway. That increases vehicle acceleration, especially in the upper gears. You can't play that off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top