yes neither am I but with a number of 3Ls ranging from being a day old to a year or more running around my area this way have been fine.
I did finally look at a 2.5 chain on a 3L guide over the weekend and it fit fine.
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
2.0 rockers then SHM headers, or headers first, then rockers
- Thread starter SicSE
- Start date
yes neither am I but with a number of 3Ls ranging from being a day old to a year or more running around my area this way have been fine.
I did finally look at a 2.5 chain on a 3L guide over the weekend and it fit fine.
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it would cause problems. It's just that the PCM adjusts fuel for the whole bank based partially on the reading it gets from the upstream O2. Plumbing it into just one cylinder doesn't necessarily give it an accurate pic of what's going on with the bank as a whole.
I just remember when I put my 2.5l chain on my 3L guide, it didn't sit quite like it's supposed to since the 2.5l chain is a bit wider than the 3l one.
kscontourkid
Veteran CEG'er
what do you mean by swirl type? the 2.5 SE cams are identical to the 98 3L cams that came out of my engine. i measured all around. lift, duration, timing... the ones i had were the 98 3L cams and a set of 99 SE cams and other than the water pump running off of the intake cam on the SEs, they were the same. even the gears and chains were the same.
the only difference i found was on the 3rd set of cams i had out of a 98 SVT. only the intake cams were different than the rest with the secondary lobe being staggered a little bit to open the valve later. the exhaust cams were all identical.
but i am curious about the swirl. it that just referring to the SVT intake cams?
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
By swirl-type, I meant that the opening of the intake valves is slightly staggered to create swirl inside the combustion chamber. I was thinking split-port compared to oval-port on that post about the cam differences. :blackeye: I'm not sure about the 3l split-port cams.
Aren't all of your intake cam lobes staggered for a given cylinder? It was my understanding that they should be. The SVT cams have more duration, but the I thought the opening points were the same between the SVT & SE cams.
kscontourkid
Veteran CEG'er
nope the SVT cams actually have the same "duration" but are staggered to make the duration longer using the different length runners to bring in the faster air a little later. the 2.5 cams are the same as all the 3L cams in terms of timing from what i have measured. the SVT cams are the ones that are "swirled" or staggered.
that would be why i was confused. in a split port setup with short and long runners the SVT cams are a far superior setup however you take away the different length runners and the effectiveness of them drops. they do still offer a longer combined duration of the staggered valves but when you have air moving at the same velocity it does not create the maximum improvements possible.
the ideal intake would be the SVT intake with plenums that were twice the size of the existing ones. do that and you would have a very awesome intake.
that would be why i was confused. in a split port setup with short and long runners the SVT cams are a far superior setup however you take away the different length runners and the effectiveness of them drops. they do still offer a longer combined duration of the staggered valves but when you have air moving at the same velocity it does not create the maximum improvements possible.
the ideal intake would be the SVT intake with plenums that were twice the size of the existing ones. do that and you would have a very awesome intake.
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
Odd that all the 2.5l heads have swirl-enhancers in the combustion chambers.
kscontourkid
Veteran CEG'er
that is for the different length runners more than likely
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the runners would have less to do with it than functioning secondaries. It makes sense from a production cost standpoint, as far as the cams go. The swirl design of the combustion chamber is intended to improve low-end power & torque, but it would not be nearly as effective, if at all, without functioning secondaries to channel the entire intake charge to one valve.
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
Well, I verified no gains from the rockers, which led me to measure & compare installed lift of an old rocker vs. a new one. There is no change in lift between the two rockers. :blackeye:
I'm sorry to hear that. Atleast you cleared that argument up :shrug:
morbid
Hard-core CEG'er
Didn't I say that on page 1?
There was a big debate about it like 6 months ago... the outcome was that they were the same, only the documentation changed (inaccurately).
biminiLX
Hard-core CEG'er
Oh well, at least he tried.
I'm more interested to see what the headers are going to do.
-J
I'm more interested to see what the headers are going to do.
-J
SicSE
Veteran CEG'er
Damn you, (and all the others), for being right! :blackeye:Didn't I say that on page 1?
Yeah, I've read the other debates. My problem was that no one ever verified installed lift with side-by-side measurements. It didn't matter how many times I read the different posts from the different people, the end result always seemed to me to be one person's belief vs. another's. It never seemed to be positively cleared up, even with monkey-boy's measurements, (especially given the lack of a roller center-to-lifter center measurement).
On another note, I have the headers installed and they feel as nice as they look. :drool: I ran into some minor problems with the install last Saturday and haven't had a chance to dyno it yet. The sh*t is way too loud for me to drive around without an exhaust though, so the dyno comparison is going to have to all be done the same day. If all goes well, that day will be this Saturday.
morbid
Hard-core CEG'er
Good point. Thanks for physically/factually putting an end to the rocker difference possibilities.