• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

Does anyone remember this 3 liter NA

B

BurritaSVT

Veteran CEG'er
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
756
Location
houma, LA 70360
davidz_3lsmaller.jpg


This was a great 3 liter that was built years back when the first 3 liters swaps were just known to us thanks to David Z, Warmonger, beyondloadedSE, etc. This engine had some adjustable cams to allow the engine to achieve better VE up top. The intake he used was the hybrid setup with the SVT uppers and lower with some porting on the heads. We are all aware of that the intake as you can see could easily support the air needed to achieve the airflow of 280hp Engine with about 260ft/lb torque. The heads that were used on the setup was SVT with 3 liter valves which can outflow a oval port by simple area measurements so my point to the story is that all the bug hype about not being able to support a 3 liter is not been proven yet to be untrue especailly when we can look at this dyno and verfiy that is has not been touched yet. The oval port heads are the big bottle neck anyway if you want to find the weak point NOT the intakes systems. But I can only imagine seeing this come about when you go to 500whp since the oval ports are large also by all means and the split ports even larger. We know the volume is most definitly different but is the lowend torque from the cams or the intakes obviousily we know it is the cams. Heck the SE cams we tune earlier this year put down more torque than the SVT.......hmmm why because it was built for a ATX and the topends suffers because of it just like the Escape cams. Which is great cam by all means.

If I felt the split ports were hampering your power levels then why does this dyno show steady power up top if it was scavenging due to smaller intakes. The SVT car was road tested against all the cars in its class where everyone of their competitors had more torque than it did. But guess which one felt faster and more sporty on acceleration then the other torque monsters SVT was favored over all it class and even over 30k cars when it came to power and performance.

I personally like both setups but it is based on what application you are wanting the car to achieve is going to be your choice. I think we can all agree that price is no longer the problem on any swap or even power I can't see anyone so far completly stomping down insane numbers to shift it from preference to outright performance decision. Joey
 
FWIW, the SVT on Steroids that SHO-Shop did for MM&FF made 229 whp and 208 wtq with its 3.0L hybrid that used the 2.5L heads and intakes.

I suppose the only way to find out which is better is to put the heads and intakes on a flow bench. I think Terry Haines is getting one. :ponder:
 
and for such a niche market, that died out at the start of 8 years ago.
 
they had their ported intake manifold (they sold for 500$)

their big bore LIM (they sold for (400$ i believe)

and they removed the serpentine belt. if you want to get the accurate HP measurement, you would have to take off the 8HP they gained at the dyno when they took off the serpentine belt.

still cool, but SHOSHOP parts for the contour were insanely priced. lol
 
TRicker said:
they had their ported intake manifold (they sold for 500$)

their big bore LIM (they sold for (400$ i believe)

and they removed the serpentine belt. if you want to get the accurate HP measurement, you would have to take off the 8HP they gained at the dyno when they took off the serpentine belt.

still cool, but SHOSHOP parts for the contour were insanely priced. lol
Click to expand...

That dyno is from my archives that I've had for years. That is from DavidZ's car and he did not remove his serpentine belt.
Either way, forget about the peak numbers and just look at the shape of the torque curve. THat is broad and flat and there is NO WAY a 3L with escape cams is going to achieve that. THe broad flat curve is a result of both cams and intake.

IF you use escape cams with 2.5L upper then you can actually extend the use of the excape cams. I have an airflow graph/datalog that shows exactly what happens when escape cams are used in a 2.5L SVT engines with otherwise stock hardware. The torque curve is extended into the higher rpm ranges! Miracle?? No, the manifold is tune to be optimal above 5K rpm when the secondary runners are working at their best. The primary runners keep the torque up in the low ranges. Using the escape cams is NOT as good as using the SVT cams when combined with the SVT intake system but it will work fine and have a reasonably broad torque curve.

Using the escape cams with the ovalport manifolds results in a large torque bump around 4500 but with pretty quick torque dropoff above 5500rpm and overall result is actually a narrower powerband. This is the biggest indicator that the ovalport manifolds by themselve have No Resonance tuning associated with them for high rpm use like the contour manifolds do.
I believe it was purely done for cost cutting measures and because when mated with a 3L ATX car there was no need for such a broad powerband like a 2.5L MTX sport sedan had.
 
beyondloadedSE said:
I think he was referring to the "SVT on Steroids" Sho-Shop dyno from MM&FF.
Click to expand...

True, and DavidZ also had a set of one-off cams with adjustable gears.
However the basic premise is that no matter what cams you use, if the manifold wasn't capable of flowing the air that those cams allow into the engine then you'd still have a high rpm restriction. The dyno indicates that there is no high rpm restriction just from the shape of the torque curve.
My own 3L dyno of 217wHP on ported stock intake system aside from a huge K&N also shows that the manifolds can flow extremely well at high rpm with little work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top