-
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
- Thread starter BurritaSVT
- Start date
95pgt-t
Hard-core CEG'er
because he said that the next time he goes to the dyno it'll be on svt cams to do a comparison on svt cams this time. :shrug: seems clearcut to me
beyondloadedSE
Hard-core CEG'er
Stylin55_oh
CEG'er
What exhaust was on the car? I am really curious.
biminiLX
Hard-core CEG'er
Will be interesting if they could repeat this same test after swapping in SVT cams.
I was hoping the SVT UIM would do better.
Did you get a chance to test your CAI also?
-J
I was hoping the SVT UIM would do better.
Did you get a chance to test your CAI also?
-J
SVT Loki
Veteran CEG'er
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
mazda 6
taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM 13.5
SVT UIM 12.5
in that order
taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM
Mazda 6
notice the A/F are very close plus I have some more dyno runs showing the A/f did not make more than 1whp difference even at 12.5 versus 13.5
notice the Mazda 6 pulled to 116mph in 2 secs quicker than all the manifolds so midrange power does not mean you will accelerate faster than topend power because you can clearly see that the smoother torque band made a faster pull. Joey
taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM 13.5
SVT UIM 12.5
in that order
taurus 2004
taurus 2001
SVT UIM
Mazda 6
notice the A/F are very close plus I have some more dyno runs showing the A/f did not make more than 1whp difference even at 12.5 versus 13.5
notice the Mazda 6 pulled to 116mph in 2 secs quicker than all the manifolds so midrange power does not mean you will accelerate faster than topend power because you can clearly see that the smoother torque band made a faster pull. Joey
PurpleMystique
Hard-core CEG'er
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the Mazda 6 manifold run started at around ~53mph while the other three started around ~40ish. So of course it would reach 116 sooner...but for your sake, I hope I'm wrong.
morbid
Hard-core CEG'er
Joey... thanks for the data and all your hard work!
Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
Joey, you didn't happen to do any datalogging in the car during these runs, did you?
biminiLX
Hard-core CEG'er
I was going to ask the same thing. :shrug:
-J
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
yeah I think you are right I told the guy to start at 2k for all runs I will look at it again my bad if so. Joey
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
now you will see the fifth run is 12.1 that is the SVT that I had to adjust but it didn't gain any power from it when I did lean it out some as you can see. on the fourth run
Oh I did mess up I grabbed the wrong dyno for the time comparision. Joey
the crazy thing is the SVT made more power down low then all the manifolds so I am certain the small plenums are acting as small runners. Joey
Last edited:
PurpleMystique
Hard-core CEG'er
Ditto.
Mid-Range Problem with SVT UIM
Mid-Range Problem with SVT UIM
This all makes me second guess my decision to go with a ported 3L...and the hours I've invested in porting, and the cheap price I sold the 3L manifold for on ebay!
I am curious about the SVT UIM under-performing through the entire mid-range, yet picking up at the top end. This does not seem like a "flow volume" or "plenum volume" issue as this (to my simple brain) seem counter to the good 7K performance. It would seem like there's a "flow quality" issue or velocity issue when compared to the oval port manifolds that were made for the oval port heads. Here we have two inlets with different flow rates (from the short and long runners) being merged in the custom LIM.....Can it be that the transition into the oval through the custom LIM is an issue?
Any thoughts?
It seems like the ported 3L motors (sporadically posted over the years) are averaging well over 200whp (all of the highest N/A outputs are either ported or hybrid) while the full 3L are usually just under 200whp...could this just be that the typical ported 3L guys are spending more time and modding more features?
Mid-Range Problem with SVT UIM
This all makes me second guess my decision to go with a ported 3L...and the hours I've invested in porting, and the cheap price I sold the 3L manifold for on ebay!
I am curious about the SVT UIM under-performing through the entire mid-range, yet picking up at the top end. This does not seem like a "flow volume" or "plenum volume" issue as this (to my simple brain) seem counter to the good 7K performance. It would seem like there's a "flow quality" issue or velocity issue when compared to the oval port manifolds that were made for the oval port heads. Here we have two inlets with different flow rates (from the short and long runners) being merged in the custom LIM.....Can it be that the transition into the oval through the custom LIM is an issue?
Any thoughts?
It seems like the ported 3L motors (sporadically posted over the years) are averaging well over 200whp (all of the highest N/A outputs are either ported or hybrid) while the full 3L are usually just under 200whp...could this just be that the typical ported 3L guys are spending more time and modding more features?
95pgt-t
Hard-core CEG'er
most people post peak hp numbers to,as opposed to what it does throughout the band:shrug: lets not forget,this is on 3L cams. the svt manifold and cams should preform better together.
it basically goes back to the old argument. split port cams for split port manifolds,and oval port cams for oval port manifolds
it basically goes back to the old argument. split port cams for split port manifolds,and oval port cams for oval port manifolds
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
yes the test are not complete till we test the SVT cams because the 2004cams are not made to flow as much. I do think that the SVT torque band is nice and flat but as you noticed I see it pick up more up top so I will test the manifold again with SVT cams and then test another SVT UIM with larger plenums. This was a stock motor no headers , stock y-pipe, stock res cand catback. The only mod was the CAI and it was already cold on the dyno plus the car made 204whp STD meaning at that temps but they corrected the SAE took power away.
Take a look at Aaron snob what headers do and a good catback system etc with all the bolts on the car would have done 15whp more plus I did not tweak it manifold to peak performance since we used the same tune for all the runs. We made 200whp with a direct swap and crappy cams in my opinion for power up top.
96BlackSE
CEG'er
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...
Anyhow I'll say it again, if you really want to go with the split ports for the love of god atleast use the proper heads keeping the primary and secondary runners seperate (And yes the more recent 01+ 2.5 heads even have the additional oil drains) so if you really want split port don't go wasting a proper set of heads hogging them out or use some adapter plate chaging injector positions without proper R&D... There is a reason why engineers spend countless hours on computers designing engine systems and not throwing an injector here and there and eyeballing intake setups...
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...
Anyhow I'll say it again, if you really want to go with the split ports for the love of god atleast use the proper heads keeping the primary and secondary runners seperate (And yes the more recent 01+ 2.5 heads even have the additional oil drains) so if you really want split port don't go wasting a proper set of heads hogging them out or use some adapter plate chaging injector positions without proper R&D... There is a reason why engineers spend countless hours on computers designing engine systems and not throwing an injector here and there and eyeballing intake setups...
BurritaSVT
Veteran CEG'er
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
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.