• 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

I'm being blunt for a reason. Building a manifold takes quite a bit of Physics, the thing that he has dismissed and portrayed myself and others as fools for thinking of in the past and up until about now.. His understanding of 'how it works' is poor.
 
rac74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

i know we're talking performance. u asked me to ditch my UIM. all i did was give u a reason i wanted to keep it. don't get me wrong. i see your point. from day one, i've planned to go FI. these little hp gains or loss here and there was inconsequential to me. all i knew was that it had to be a fi'd 3L. granted, there's probably a bit more gains to be made with a 3L intake. wait... reebs(jeff) had an svt cam'd 3L intake turbo. i wonder what kinda numbers he was pushing:ponder:
 
rac74 said:
I'm being blunt for a reason. Building a manifold takes quite a bit of Physics, the thing that he has dismissed and portrayed myself and others as fools for thinking of in the past and up until about now.. His understanding of 'how it works' is poor.
Click to expand...

i'm certain he doesn't think that of anyone. Outta curiousity, what's your setup anyway?
 
BAD SVT said:
i'm certain he doesn't think that of anyone. Outta curiousity, what's your setup anyway?
Click to expand...

He dimissed physics and their application to the ICE and does not understand them. Hardly someone that should undertake such a project. You don't need to defend him.

I have a 2001 Taurus engine and a later model UIM. I did use the bastardized combo intitially before I got a clue on 'how it works'. I then ripped the engine out and replaced the hogged heads with fresh oval heads. The ports have been reduced in CSA by about 50% before the short side radius.
 
Last edited:
rac74 said:
He dimissed physics and their application to the ICE and does not understand them. Hardly someone that should undertake such a project. You don't need to defend him.

I have a 2001 Taurus engine and a later model UIM with IMCC. I did use the bastardized combo intitially before I got a clue on 'how it works'. I then ripped the engine out and replaced the hogged heads with fresh oval heads. The ports have been reduced in CSA by about 50% before the short side radius.
Click to expand...

"bastardized combo". LOL! its not that bad dude. i have that setup, obviously. who did the reduction in surface area? u or a shop? am asking cos am trying to compile a table of cost vs result on 3l swaps.
 
Last edited:
BAD SVT said:
"bastardized combo". LOL! its not that bad dude. i have that setup, obviously. who did the reduction in surface area? u or a shop? am asking cos am trying to compile a table of cost vs result on 3l swaps.
Click to expand...

It REALLY is that BAD!
The biggest problem is that with the SVT UIM you have 2 runners per cylinder which flow at different velocities due to the unequal length of runners, then you are joining these before entering the combustion chamber causing a tremendous amount of turbulance where its not needed and at the same time reducing the velocity of the air where its needed the MOST!

In my opinion the effect will be worse when the oval ports are hogged out to accept the SVT UIM because you are significantly increasing the cross section of the head port right where it matters the most...

About the sheet metal intake, maybe it'll be good for FI'd cars but for an NA car I am not too sure if it even be possible to fabricate something that will fit under the hood and be better than the complicated plastic manifolds... If the hood wasn't the problem then you can machine some runners with the required CSA, degree of taper and length for the required powerband then attach a large plenum to it made of the desired material and try it out...
 
rac74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

it sounds like you are debating performance, not looks. it seems to me that others, including myself, have stated that the choice of using the split LIM and UIM had looks and ease of installation factored in. I haven't seen anyone try to argue the split was the best performance choice, at least not me.

the fact of the matter is we are talking about a fwd 4-door family sedan. consider the majority of the people on this site have these cars not strictly for performance, i don't think many have a problem trading 10% power numbers for othe reasons, such as factory look.

I still can't believe you and 96BlackSE are hammering on the split port so badly. It really isn't that bad, it still making close to 200whp on most applications, doesn't sound that bad to me, when you consider a stock svt will put closer to 160. yeah its not the most possible power that a 3l can make, but to most, its pretty damn good.
 
Last edited:
96BlackSE said:
Why don't people just want to understand the 2.5 intake is/was made for a 2.5 liter engine, its not wise to put it on the 3 liter engine with 20% more displacement...

And lets not even go into the downsides of the setup with the injector positioning...

What has amuzed me over the years were BurritaSVT's and Warmonger's posts... Denying the entire science and engine theories and the claim of the mysterious science of eyeball porting/hogging out intake ports, and mysterious capabilites of visualizing fuel spray patterns to make one better than what already had existed... It was argued over and over and I gave up on even arguing but I guess the results are now starting to show...
Click to expand...
  1. Tests were done with 3L cams - ideally suited to the 3L manifolds.
  2. SVT cams that allow more air flow will likely favor the SVT UIM. We'll see.
  3. None of these were 'hogged out' ported 3L heads.
  4. You talk about science, but your statements are rife with assumptions and conjecture.
  5. You're missing the point of the comparison presented here. Wake up.
  6. The testing is not done yet. Pay attention.
For good measure here is some of your style science.
  • You note the 3L has 20% more displacement. Therefore it must be able to consume more air & fuel for combustion. Simple math on the port openings for the split ports versus the oval ports will show the split ports offer more available flow. (incidentally, the dynos bear that out) Therefore the split port SVT UIM is the better match for the 3L, according to your science but you still rail on the setup.
Now something a bit closer to actual thinking:
  • You note the 2.5 intake was made for the 2.5 engine. The 2.5 split port intake (and more specifically the SVT intake) was designed for different performance parameters, not to specifically match the displacement of the engine - also hence the difference in the cams. The performance parameters targeted by the engineering dictated a different profile on the SVT cam lobes and also required retention of the split port intake design instead of the mechanically simple and lower cost oval port design that was adopted by the Taurus/Sable.
Until the testing is complete this still boils down to where in the curve you want the power. If you live at redline, use one setup. If you enjoy a mid range torque boost on the street, use another. Overall the best setup is matter of debate so let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

Joey, I again thank you for your up-front presentation of data. You show integrity & class by not hiding what you have found thus far. I look forward to the completion of this exercise. Salute! <S>
 
Overall a lot of good information here. Thanks for doing this Joey. Below are my thoughts...

BurritaSVT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course it is because the intake was designed to be used with secondaries, which is the whole purpose of the secondary runners. Maybe it will perform better with both the SVT cams and the secondaries.

BurritaSVT said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's designed around 1950's research. This isn't anything new. The design utilizes the "ramming effect". The intake is designed to provide peak performance through specific RPM ranges. It's using the wave pulses during RPM ranges to provide the most air at the given time it needs it at the cylinder. The SVT intake was "tuned" for a certain RPM range, which corresponded to the chosen runner lengths. By removing the secondaries you have taken out the impulses of air that it was designed to use at certain RPM ranges. The reason why it out performs the Taurus oval port intake at the top is because this is when the SVT intake is using all of the air it possible can at which point it was tuned to perform with both runners. The intake falls on it's face in the lower RPM's because your using both runners when it was tuned to use one per cylinder. I'm guessing if you run the numbers using some older formula's which Dr. Helmuth W. Engelman wrote about in his conference papers for ASME you would be able to conclude this with math as well. I would strongly suggest reading these research papers below to gain a better understanding of intake design before attempting to learn by trial and error. You may be able to save yourself a lot of time. Here is a list of worth while references...

Helmuth W. Engelman, The Tuned Intake Manifold: Supercharging without a Blower, University of Wisconsin – Madison, American Society of Mechanical Engineers – Oil and Gas Power Division Conference Paper, 53-OGP-4, April, 13 1953

Cambi, Enzo, Trigonometric Components of a Frequency Modulated Wave, Proceedings of I.R.E, Vol. 36, 1948, pp 42-49

Vorum, P.C, Short Pipe Manifold Design for Four-Stroke Engines, American Society of Mechanical Engineers- Diesel and Gas Engine Power Division Conference Paper, 76-WA/DGP-4, 1976

Vorum, P.C, Short Pipe Manifold Design for Four-Stroke Engines Part II, American Society of Mechanical Engineers- Diesel and Gas Engine Power Division Conference Paper, 80-DGP-6, 1980

I think for a true comparison you should run the SVT UIM , SVT LIM with secondaries and IMRC along with the SVT cams.

96BlackSE said:
It REALLY is that BAD!
The biggest problem is that with the SVT UIM you have 2 runners per cylinder which flow at different velocities due to the unequal length of runners, then you are joining these before entering the combustion chamber causing a tremendous amount of turbulance where its not needed and at the same time reducing the velocity of the air where its needed the MOST!
Click to expand...

Not a problem if it is used as it was intended. Again it was design around secondaries and specific RPM ranges for a 2.5L V6's volumetric efficiencies. If used with secondaries you wouldn't have flow issues through out the RPM range.


Just my .02. End Rant.

EDIT: Here is another reference book that is a little more up to date.

Read pages 309-315

ISBN # 0-7680-0495-0
Title: Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines
Author: Richard Stone
Publisher: Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001
Copyright 1985, 1992, 1999
 
Last edited:
everyone always says that the oval port was the engineering advancement from the split port .... honestly I think it had more to do with costs then being a better design. The oval port has to be alot cheaper then a split port with secondaries, and it has to have less problems also.

But ihmo the split port w/secondaries is the better design. It does exactly what is was designed to do, basically create two hp and torque peaks so that there is down low power and power up top. The oval port is a compromize that nets mid range power which is great for a large family sedan with only an automatic, not a small/mid sized sedan with a smaller motor and a mtx .... if you really think about it a constantly variable running would be best, optimal runner length for a specific rpm .... but that really isn't feasable non cost effective.

is a ported 3L the best thing to do by the books or by theory, maybe not, but does it work, sure does .....

and everyone thats against it seems to base everything on theory, which is great from a theoretical stand point but therory doesn't always stand up when put into the real world, its just a guide ....

so again, its all about preference ...

large thanks to Joey for all the hard work and testing to try to get some answer on what works best in the real world.
 
I can't believe some of the arrogant stupidity in here. When I get a little time, I'll post a detailed rebuttal to many of the comments in there.

In the meantime, I'll ask Joey again, because he probably missed it, did you run datalogging during any of these dyno runs? I'd like to see some of the data if its there.
 
TourDeForce said:
  1. Tests were done with 3L cams - ideally suited to the 3L manifolds.
  2. SVT cams that allow more air flow will likely favor the SVT UIM. We'll see.
  3. None of these were 'hogged out' ported 3L heads.
  4. You talk about science, but your statements are rife with assumptions and conjecture.
  5. You're missing the point of the comparison presented here. Wake up.
  6. The testing is not done yet. Pay attention.
For good measure here is some of your style science.
  • You note the 3L has 20% more displacement. Therefore it must be able to consume more air & fuel for combustion. Simple math on the port openings for the split ports versus the oval ports will show the split ports offer more available flow. (incidentally, the dynos bear that out) Therefore the split port SVT UIM is the better match for the 3L, according to your science but you still rail on the setup.
Now something a bit closer to actual thinking:
  • You note the 2.5 intake was made for the 2.5 engine. The 2.5 split port intake (and more specifically the SVT intake) was designed for different performance parameters, not to specifically match the displacement of the engine - also hence the difference in the cams. The performance parameters targeted by the engineering dictated a different profile on the SVT cam lobes and also required retention of the split port intake design instead of the mechanically simple and lower cost oval port design that was adopted by the Taurus/Sable.
Until the testing is complete this still boils down to where in the curve you want the power. If you live at redline, use one setup. If you enjoy a mid range torque boost on the street, use another. Overall the best setup is matter of debate so let's not jump to conclusions just yet.

Joey, I again thank you for your up-front presentation of data. You show integrity & class by not hiding what you have found thus far. I look forward to the completion of this exercise. Salute! <S>
Click to expand...

You're getting confused...Port area is one apect of port/manifold design. It's the plenums that were compromised and inadequete for the 3L. Distribution between cylinders goes down the drain when they are too small, meaning that certain cylinders are recieving more than others. Power losses are noted as evident.

There is nothing wrong with the twin port or oval port designs, no one should be arguing that. The issue is using the 2.5L manifold (inadequete) on a 3L engine (as evidenced). The other issue is using twin port manifolds on top of oval port heads. You lose most of the dual runner effect when you do this, making it a mute point to do it in the first place unless 'looks or laziness' are in your order.

The 2.5L manifold does make a bit more high speed TQ than the Taurus and makes VERY minimal imoprovement over the Escape. This minimal improvemnet over very little of the engines performance operating range does not make up for up to the 6% of TQ it lacks for well over 1000 RPM. Something that is not sinking in. Road engines are not steady state, they do not stay at a constant crank speed. Therefore, EVERY RPM the engine sees from the rev drop after a shift to redline is used to accelerate the car. When you realize this is over 2500RPM the engine has to traverse, you'll realize that 1-2% improvements in HP over a few hundred RPM do not make up for what it's lacking for over a thousand.

More profoundly to emphasize a point, guys that do Bonneville type deals will tell you that in the high gears, shift recovery is CRUCIAL. You can not use the peak HP if you cannot get there first, especially when aerodynamics are fighting you every step of the way. Accleration is slower in the higher gears so you're slower to get to peak HP. Same deal with any engine, most notably in street engines, you have to get there first, so compromising a little peak HP is OK and beneficial to over all acceleration.

Most of the tuning of the dual runner system is lost when put on an oval head. The runners are no longer isolated. When we add SVT cams that allow better breathing by shifting the powerband up, what is going change the fact that the 2.5L manifold is already inadequete for even the milder oval port camshafts?
 
Rara said:
I can't believe some of the arrogant stupidity in here. When I get a little time, I'll post a detailed rebuttal to many of the comments in there.

In the meantime, I'll ask Joey again, because he probably missed it, did you run datalogging during any of these dyno runs? I'd like to see some of the data if its there.
Click to expand...

Good deal. Looking forward to reading what you have to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top