IRingTwyce
I ROCK at bumper cars!
I just ran across this thread. And yes, I was appalled. Both by the car, the misrepresentation of it, and that ridiculous e-mail. I had to stop reading about a quarter of the way through. It made my head hurt.
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
Went to look at a replacement SVT.
- Thread starter Pen_Two
- Start date
- Status
Mystique97
Veteran CEG'er
You know it sounds like he is bashing our cars if you ask me Mercury Mistake? WTH dude my Mercury has been an excellent car to me just a few minor quirks but thats just the age in it. Biggest thing so far was the timing belt replacment now I'm battling a small coolant leak. No freakin big deal. Oh and I'll give him $100 for that SVT. 
Big Daddy Kane
Hard-core CEG'er
Sho 3.0:
Sho 3.0:
SHO 3.0L:
The "SHO 3.0L" in this car:
Not even close!
Sho 3.0:
SHO 3.0L:
The "SHO 3.0L" in this car:
Not even close!
todras
Pretty fly for a white guy *cowbell*
So now they have F/I on a hybrid? That should work well. That is if it has a 3L block. Are they callin a SHO motor a SHO Shop motor? That guys comments make baby Jesus cry. I read 2 sentances and went on.
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
I think hes calling them SHO heads?? :shrug:
svt sho engine with vortech supercharger.
svt sho engine with vortech supercharger.
Ok I am the person that owns the shop that built this car and is selling for my customer. The only mistake I see I made here is that I listed it in excelent condition. I see how depending on what you concider excelent condition, you might get the wrong idea.
I looked at it this way, NADA has thier definitions for what the car is worth excelent, good, fair and poor. Lets say a stock svt that is just about perfect is worth 5000. The car I am selling in "good" condition with the added options that you cant fill in because they are custom upgrades is worth as much as that if not a lot more as that just about perfect "excelent" condition car.
As far as the sho engine; The intake and valve covers were not changed they are the 2.5 parts. I think that is where some people may be gitting fooled. The comlete heads and block is the only thing that is from the sho. No the intake manifod and valve covers will not fit in this car. This also saved us a lot of time fooling with the electronics to get it to run right.
I dont want to fight about it but that email, that was written before, was not directed at any one person. It was out of frustration of people that were talking about things without all the information needed to make some of those conclusions. I want to apologise about wasting some of pen two's time, but I never stated that it was a perfect show car. I do feel however it is well worth $5500 or more. He mentioned it was a horrible paint job. It does have 3 small areas arount 1 mirror and 3 small spots near the tailamps, that I didnt even see till now, where it isnt perfect, but horrible? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Hope this clears some things up. Everybody is entitled to thier opinions. If you are not interested in it fine but dont bash something when you dont know about it. If anybody has any aditional questions this thread has brought up feel free to reply to this post. -Dan
svt sho engine with vortech supercharger.
Ok I am the person that owns the shop that built this car and is selling for my customer. The only mistake I see I made here is that I listed it in excelent condition. I see how depending on what you concider excelent condition, you might get the wrong idea.
I looked at it this way, NADA has thier definitions for what the car is worth excelent, good, fair and poor. Lets say a stock svt that is just about perfect is worth 5000. The car I am selling in "good" condition with the added options that you cant fill in because they are custom upgrades is worth as much as that if not a lot more as that just about perfect "excelent" condition car.
As far as the sho engine; The intake and valve covers were not changed they are the 2.5 parts. I think that is where some people may be gitting fooled. The comlete heads and block is the only thing that is from the sho. No the intake manifod and valve covers will not fit in this car. This also saved us a lot of time fooling with the electronics to get it to run right.
I dont want to fight about it but that email, that was written before, was not directed at any one person. It was out of frustration of people that were talking about things without all the information needed to make some of those conclusions. I want to apologise about wasting some of pen two's time, but I never stated that it was a perfect show car. I do feel however it is well worth $5500 or more. He mentioned it was a horrible paint job. It does have 3 small areas arount 1 mirror and 3 small spots near the tailamps, that I didnt even see till now, where it isnt perfect, but horrible? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Hope this clears some things up. Everybody is entitled to thier opinions. If you are not interested in it fine but dont bash something when you dont know about it. If anybody has any aditional questions this thread has brought up feel free to reply to this post. -Dan
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
For the last time, its NOT a SHO motor! The SHO motors or heads for that matter will not work in this car. Nobody is confused. We know what were talking about. People on here have been swapping 3.0Ls from the Taurus for quite a few years now. Your thinking of a 3.0L duratec that came from a 99+ Taurus. The SHO motors that came in those years were V8s anyways. The 3.0L SHO motor that was used in the earlier model Taurus SHO's have absolutely nothing with the 3.0L duratec other than displacement.
Last edited:
Y2KSVT
Hard-core CEG'er
I, along with others, are interested in seeing how you fit a 3.0L SHO motor, which is considerably larger than a Duratec 3.0L, into the Contour's engine bay. Not to mention, mating up the 2.5L Duratec intake manifolds, to the SHO heads. You'd no doubt, have to have some sort of adapter plate for the intake manifolds, as they are NOT a direct bolt-on. The same would go for the exhaust manifolds. I've owned a couple of SHO's, and an SVT, and they are not the same dimensions. Not trying to call you out, just looking for clarification.
Mark
Mark
The Digital Slacker
Hard-core CEG'er
Fyi,
Coming on an internet post and getting your panties in a twist over a car with a crappy paint job is crazy. You can email luca and tell her that digital slacker called you a cock bag.
I'm glad I didn't drive from lancaster to see that car. I would have been even more direct about the flaws.
Coming on an internet post and getting your panties in a twist over a car with a crappy paint job is crazy. You can email luca and tell her that digital slacker called you a cock bag.
I'm glad I didn't drive from lancaster to see that car. I would have been even more direct about the flaws.
Seriously, I haven't even really considered a 3.0L swap and I haven't even see a v8 show motor in person and I can tell you this guys is an stupid dumb ass.
Way to represent CEG. Such insightful comments, you guys really added some useful information there.:shrug:
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
Hes not talking about the V8 SHO motor, hes talking about the 3.0L V6 SHO motor.
Let's calm down , guys ... at least he came on here & tried to explain it himself . He may be a bit confused about the Taurus 3l & the SHO 3l , but that's no reason to burn him at the stake . Let's not act like a bunch of nutters & maybe let him explain further .
Pen_Two
Is not easliy amused.
I greatly appreciate the fact that you took the time to apologize to me. I wasn't exactly bashing your car, I was mostly just pointing out the visible flaws with it for an out of state buyer that might have been interested. I agree, the paint isn't horrible, other than the aforementioned areas that could use a touch-up. I saw it in the rain as you had pointed out in your email to Jared, so I may have judged it rather harshly. I'm also glad you were willing to admit that it isn't excellent condition like the add says. It shows a lot about your character to admit you made a mistake. I would like to apologize to you for causing these 10 pages of problems for you, but I only did it with the best of intentions for the average consumer who wasn't local to the car.
Big Jim
Hard-core CEG'er
I just sent him a PM. Here is a copy of the message. I believe he is honestly confused.
"You are greatly mistaken about the SHO motor. It isn't anything like the Duratec 2.5 or 3.0. Those parts will not interchange.
If there was a 3.0 conversion (and I believe you) most likely it was either from a Taurus or an Escape. Both of those are the same family as the engine the SVT originally came with. The SVT intake manifolds can be used on the 2001 and later Taurus or Escape Duratec 3.0 with a little modification to the 3.0 heads. Also the 2.5 heads with the 2.5 intakes can be used but the compression ratio is about 11.25 to 1, a bit difficult to work with.
Many of those that have commented on the misunderstanding about which engine could be in that car have done 3.0 conversions themselves. There is a forum at CEG just for the 3.0 conversion. If you look back a few posts on the thread about this car you will find photos of both engines.
One of the big differences is that the SHO uses a timing belt, not a chain. There are chains on the backside connecting the intake and exhause cams, but the primary cam drive is a belt. The SHO was developed around the Vulcan 3.0 pushrod motor. Ford approached Yamaha about building dual overhead cam heads for the engine and Yamaha responded that they would only be interested if they could do the entire engine. Ford said OK, but the block dimensions must remain the same. One of the weaknesses of the SHO motor is that the block bell housing is too small to permit a large enough clutch for the power that the engine produced. After a few years of production, Ford got their clutch vendor (Valeo I think) to make a custom sized clutch, a diameter between standard sizes and unique to the SHO. Before that the SHO was smitten with pre-mature clutch wear problems.
The SHO also uses a completely different valvetrain design. It has direct action cam followers (lifters). They are solid lifters, not hydraulic, and use a shim in a bucket adjusting method like many motorcycles and early Volvos. The Duratec uses finger followers with hydraulic lash adjusters.
The differences between the engines are too numerous to bother mentioning here. The point is, to someone that has worked around both engines the differences are too obvious for you to try to tell us that the picture of the engine is that of a SHO or any part of a SHO.
A 3.0 Duratec properly built, especially with a blower on it, should run really strong. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But it isn't a SHO."
"You are greatly mistaken about the SHO motor. It isn't anything like the Duratec 2.5 or 3.0. Those parts will not interchange.
If there was a 3.0 conversion (and I believe you) most likely it was either from a Taurus or an Escape. Both of those are the same family as the engine the SVT originally came with. The SVT intake manifolds can be used on the 2001 and later Taurus or Escape Duratec 3.0 with a little modification to the 3.0 heads. Also the 2.5 heads with the 2.5 intakes can be used but the compression ratio is about 11.25 to 1, a bit difficult to work with.
Many of those that have commented on the misunderstanding about which engine could be in that car have done 3.0 conversions themselves. There is a forum at CEG just for the 3.0 conversion. If you look back a few posts on the thread about this car you will find photos of both engines.
One of the big differences is that the SHO uses a timing belt, not a chain. There are chains on the backside connecting the intake and exhause cams, but the primary cam drive is a belt. The SHO was developed around the Vulcan 3.0 pushrod motor. Ford approached Yamaha about building dual overhead cam heads for the engine and Yamaha responded that they would only be interested if they could do the entire engine. Ford said OK, but the block dimensions must remain the same. One of the weaknesses of the SHO motor is that the block bell housing is too small to permit a large enough clutch for the power that the engine produced. After a few years of production, Ford got their clutch vendor (Valeo I think) to make a custom sized clutch, a diameter between standard sizes and unique to the SHO. Before that the SHO was smitten with pre-mature clutch wear problems.
The SHO also uses a completely different valvetrain design. It has direct action cam followers (lifters). They are solid lifters, not hydraulic, and use a shim in a bucket adjusting method like many motorcycles and early Volvos. The Duratec uses finger followers with hydraulic lash adjusters.
The differences between the engines are too numerous to bother mentioning here. The point is, to someone that has worked around both engines the differences are too obvious for you to try to tell us that the picture of the engine is that of a SHO or any part of a SHO.
A 3.0 Duratec properly built, especially with a blower on it, should run really strong. It is nothing to be ashamed of. But it isn't a SHO."
sho engine...
sho engine...
Ok I stand corrected. I honestly didnt put that much thought into it when I wrote that description of the car for sale. I see that it definately isnt an sho or any part there of. After I posted the last... I did the research at the same time Big Jim wrote that last post and came to the same conclusion. I sincerely apologize about the horrible mistake I made by stateing that is was from an sho. We are a busy shop and we do a lot of swaps and configurations on a lot of cars. We did this one about 2.5 years ago and honestly havnt done much engine work on a contour or sho since. I dont claim to be a contour expert and that is obvious. There is a lot of things that I didnt remember about this car that I am now remembering. We tackle a lot of difficult jobs and always get them done right. I wouldnt just go ordering stuff either for somebodys car without doing the propper research. I used the swap info from this site to get the job done. Was very helpfull. And Pen two, I want to thank you for bringing this info up because it would have realy sucked to sell this car to somebody thinking that this is an sho engine when it isnt. I dont want to have the dishonest tag or have to return somebodies cash for something that it isnt. Bottom Line even the duratech 3.0, that it is, with supercharger nos and all the other labor and extras that go along with this car is an awesome ride. Thanks to David Z and Warmonger for thier faq pages too.
sho engine...
Ok I stand corrected. I honestly didnt put that much thought into it when I wrote that description of the car for sale. I see that it definately isnt an sho or any part there of. After I posted the last... I did the research at the same time Big Jim wrote that last post and came to the same conclusion. I sincerely apologize about the horrible mistake I made by stateing that is was from an sho. We are a busy shop and we do a lot of swaps and configurations on a lot of cars. We did this one about 2.5 years ago and honestly havnt done much engine work on a contour or sho since. I dont claim to be a contour expert and that is obvious. There is a lot of things that I didnt remember about this car that I am now remembering. We tackle a lot of difficult jobs and always get them done right. I wouldnt just go ordering stuff either for somebodys car without doing the propper research. I used the swap info from this site to get the job done. Was very helpfull. And Pen two, I want to thank you for bringing this info up because it would have realy sucked to sell this car to somebody thinking that this is an sho engine when it isnt. I dont want to have the dishonest tag or have to return somebodies cash for something that it isnt. Bottom Line even the duratech 3.0, that it is, with supercharger nos and all the other labor and extras that go along with this car is an awesome ride. Thanks to David Z and Warmonger for thier faq pages too.
The Digital Slacker
Hard-core CEG'er
TRicker
Hard-core CEG'er
danells you have a PM.
Big Jim
Hard-core CEG'er
I'm sure that several of us here can join in and say: "apology accepted". It takes a man with character to admit to the error.
hetfield
or hetfeild
And with that, this thread comes to an end.
- Status