Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General General How is an SVT supposed to run?

OK, in my search to replace the totaled SHO I have driven 4 Contours

2000 Zetech ATX
1998 DURATECH MTX
1998 SVT with a Duratech 3.0 complete engine swap
1998.5 SVT

The Zetech was as expected (ho hum), the SE Duratech MTX was a pleasent surprise, the 3.0 SVT ran like poop below 3k and stalled frequently, but ran like a scalded dog from 3-6.5K.

I drove the SVT today, which is on Ebay but in my area. The SVT was a little dissapointing. It was butter smooth and wound willingly to the rev limiter, but it did not have much torque anywhere and needed to be wrung out to feel like it was moving. I had to listen carefully to make sure the secondary intake runners were opening. But it just did not have the turbo like rush of the old SHO motor.

So I am wondering what these are supposed to run like?

It could be that the power is just so smooth and lineir that is just feels slow, but the torqueir SE felt much stronger, although was done by 6.5K RPM. It just seemed ike the SVT would HAVE to be kept buzzing in normal driving, which could get old.

Also, I searched quite a bit last night and found some conflicting information, do all the E1 SVTs have 200 hp, or just 99 and 2000 MY?

Thanks!

Well, I replaced my 92 SHO with a 98 SVT Contour, so I have a bit of experience with both cars. The best way to sum it up: the Contour was much more refined that the SHO, which I found to be a very crude car.

Comparison of the two:

Engine: the SHO's Yamaha engine with 220 HP and 210 ft-lbs of torque is just a masterpiece of the automotive art. The SHO is faster, sounds meaner when spun up, and just plain gets up and goes! Lots of torque steer, though. Advantage: SHO.

Handling: the SHO feels like exactly what it is: a souped up family sedan. While the SVT Contour is technically the same, it started with a better platform. The SHO has tons of cowl shake, has a less stiff chassis, and has numb steering compared to the SVT. Of course, the SHO is several hundred pounds heavier, and you can feel it in the turns. Advantage: SVT Contour.

Interior: the SHO's interior is roomy, with more passenger space and better accoutrements. I did have a problem with headroom in the SHO though, as my head (I'm 6'3") always lightly brushed the headliner. If you get the JBL audio system, the sound is better than the stock SVT system, and the automatic climate control system is better. The seats in the SHO were more comfortable, at least to me. Lots of trunk space, too. I thought the layout of the Contour's instruments was better. Advantage: SHO, barely.

Braking: weight is the enemy here. The Contour's brakes are far better, and they last a long time. My Contour turned 100K and still had the original front pads. Advantage: SVT Contour.

Safety: the Taurus does better in crash tests than the Contour, and I had lower insurance rates, even with only one airbag. Advantage: SHO.

Transmission: the Mazda-developed transmission in the SHO belongs in an eighteen wheeler. What a piece of junk! The SHO is notorious for burning up clutches, the pedal feel is excessive, and the shifter is just plain embarrasing for a performance vehicle. By comparison, the SVT Contour's clutch is excellent, light in touch, smooth in operation, and lasts a long time. Advantage: SVT Contour.

Reliability: Neither are anything to write home about. The SHO eats up clutches, has problems with its crank position sensor, and leaks oil from the oil pressure sensing switch. The SVT's problems are even more numerous. Consumer Reports lists both cars as "used vehicles to avoid". Advantage: none. Get a Honda.

Summary. The SHO is a crude car compared to the SVT Contour. Of course, they represent nearly a decade's difference in automotive technology. The SHO is roomier, but at the expense of more weight, poorer handling and braking, and inferior steering and shifting. The SVT Contour outhandles the SHO, and it also outshines it in regards to driving refinement. The only glaring weakness is the SVT's engine, wich is not as good as the SHO's engine, which is really something. That's not to say that the Duratech is bad, as it's not. But it has been outclassed by lots of engines since then. The E1 SVT's officially published (Car & Driver) 0-60 time is 6.9 seconds (it needs to shift to third at 55 MPH) compared to the SHO's 6.4 seconds. Quarter mile times are 15.4 versus 15.1.

In the end, I found driving the SVT Contour to be more relaxing, more involving, and worlds better in regards to refinement than the SHO. It's a lot of words to say that, but I think you need to look at the SVT Contour in that light. It will not impress you with its straight line speed, but it will knock your socks off in the twisties.

Very good summary Lee.

i am no expert but it sounds like something is up with that 3.0 you drove.

the zetec will get excellent fuel economy but most likely won't get out of its own way

the se will very respectable both in economy and power given its age

only the 99 & 2k svt's had 200 hp. the 98 had 195

An SVT and the Gen 1 SHO's (fastest) are pretty comparable in acceleration.
The SHO will stretch it's legs in 3rd gear. 3rd gear is the SHO's strongest point.
Once past 3rd gear the SVT takes the advantage again because of it's much superior aerodynamics. Not saying it takes the "lead" so to speak but that it accelerates faster.
All in all a close match with the edge definitely going to the SHO because it doesn't require a perfect launch to get the most out of it.
The SHO would "feel" stronger because of having more torque.
The SVT is lighter and nimbler making more use of it's power.

Handling is no contest. The SHO flat out sucks and badly. The SVT is quite competent in stock form and exceptional with a little help.

The SVT has the looks department covered by a mile as well.

IMO the only thing going for a SHO is the engine. It's definitely a gem but it's surrounded by excrement. (i.e. generic family sofamobile)
It definitely was way ahead of it's time back in the late 80's and early 90's though.

yeah, they E1 (1998.5-2000) = 200 hp. the E0 (1998) =195

Thanks for the replies, but the thread has gone astray.

I was not trying to elicit a comparison of the SHO and SVT so much as an SVT and a 2.5 MTX SE. I was just expecting more from the SVT than a few more reves and less bottom end. It seems like 25-30 hp should register in the butt dyno.

BTW, when I replace the clutch in my SHO at 134K miles it was the original small clutch. It was never replaced under the recall. SHOs are not drag cars. Drive em normal and the clutch will last as long as anything.

I've never driven the regular 6 cyl. Duratec, but I know it doesn't light up at 4K RPM the way the SVT engine does. Off the line they're pretty much the same, based on what I've read. Handling obviously goes to the SVT.

Don't get an automatic Zetec.

--T.J.