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

    You can register to join the community.

3L performance question

DemonSVT said:
Consider the Contique a good looking Mustang that actually handles well.

If straight line is your cup of tea you picked the wrong platform and the wrong wheels to drive it.


As for your "bench racing" question...

3L CDW-27 = 13.4 to 15 flat
Stock (88+) V8 Mustang = 14.2 to 15.5

Then again how rare is a "bone stock" Mustang...
Click to expand...


what constitutes "bone stock" cause if that simply means no upgrades, it's possible to hit high 13's on an 88-92 mustang with little more than a timing change, a tank full of good gas, and good tires. For that matter, the stock, out the door 2000 SVT Cobra R runs 12.9's, but if comparing SVT to SVT is unfair, go get a 2005+ Mustang Gt and run 13.8's bone stock and heavy as hell, stip some weight off it and run low 13's, open up the intake (remove silencers and baffles) and hit high 12's. Besides, how many n/a 3.0l tours can actually break the mid 14's? (anyone other than Demon?)

I hate to say it, but really a stock 88-92 mustang and a contour with a motor swap are fairly even in a straight line.

Now let us compare a 88-92 5.0 mustang with a next larger engine swap (5.8l) to a contour with it's next larger engine swap (gotta be fair) and the contour will not touch the mustang in a straight line.

But seriously, if you want a good cruising car that is still quick, and can be good in AutoX, stick with the contour, if you want to build a car that can be fast in a straight line or on road course, because in truth mustangs are frequently built to handle, then go with a mustang.

There is no denying, you will be hard-pressed to find a mustang capable of beating a contour in autoX, but for open track or grand prix style performance capabilities, you are further ahead with a stang over a tour.
 
Last edited:
Pope said:
what constitutes "bone stock" cause if that simply means no upgrades, it's possible to hit high 13's on an 88-92 mustang with little more than a timing change, a tank full of good gas, and good tires. For that matter, the stock, out the door 2000 SVT Cobra R runs 12.9's, but if comparing SVT to SVT is unfair, go get a 2005+ Mustang Gt and run 13.8's bone stock and heavy as hell, stip some weight off it and run low 13's, open up the intake (remove silencers and baffles) and hit high 12's. Besides, how many n/a 3.0l tours can actually break the mid 14's? (anyone other than Demon?)

I hate to say it, but really a stock 88-92 mustang and a contour with a motor swap are fairly even in a straight line.

Now let us compare a 88-92 5.0 mustang with a next larger engine swap (5.8l) to a contour with it's next larger engine swap (gotta be fair) and the contour will not touch the mustang in a straight line.

But seriously, if you want a good cruising car that is still quick, and can be good in AutoX, stick with the contour, if you want to build a car that can be fast in a straight line or on road course, because in truth mustangs are frequently built to handle, then go with a mustang.

There is no denying, you will be hard-pressed to find a mustang capable of beating a contour in autoX, but for open track or grand prix style performance capabilities, you are further ahead with a stang over a tour.
Click to expand...

Actually I think there are a few of us that broke mid 14's. I ran a 14.3 with my 18 in. rims back when I had my hybrid. If you mean mid 13's then I'd agree.
 
DemonSVT said:
That must be some rarified air to drop over 1 second from a couple degrees of advance.
Click to expand...

or they were a bit under rated and detuned from factory. besides to get from low 14's to high 13's on timing in a poorly tuned car isn't difficult, especially when you do not make the mistake of running on regular street tires or an empty gas tank (in fox body).

maybe you mean the new ones hitting high 12's when they run high 13's from factory. I have not done this myself, but I have witnessed it. there was a guy at the track earlier this summer setting a baseline before mods, having done nothing more than gut restrictions from the intake, and put the interior in race trim (drivers seat only, no spare tire/jack) and DR's on lightweight rims; Hit 12.9's. Now he hits 11's, but that tends to happen with a turbo, tune, and suspension upgrades (amongst other things).
 
Last edited:
novellino21 said:
yea about the lowering springs too, my car already bottoms out on driveways and if i lower it more than i wont be able to freak'in drive anywhere.
QUOTE]

That's what I thought until I dropped some H&R's and Koni's in. Haven't scraped anywhere near what I used to stock, and that was on an SE suspension w/SVT body kit and 17"s.

I'd do the suspension first, it is worth the cost and the reward is amazing!
Click to expand...
 
Pope said:
or they were a bit under rated and detuned from factory. besides to get from low 14's to high 13's on timing in a poorly tuned car isn't difficult, especially when you do not make the mistake of running on regular street tires or an empty gas tank (in fox body).

maybe you mean the new ones hitting high 12's when they run high 13's from factory. I have not done this myself, but I have witnessed it. there was a guy at the track earlier this summer setting a baseline before mods, having done nothing more than gut restrictions from the intake, and put the interior in race trim (drivers seat only, no spare tire/jack) and DR's on lightweight rims; Hit 12.9's. Now he hits 11's, but that tends to happen with a turbo, tune, and suspension upgrades (amongst other things).
Click to expand...

Pulling all the seats, intake, DR's......this isn't stock at all no matter how you want to call it. Definitely not "just a timing change"

By comparison I had EVERYTHING in my old car with the additon of 200lbs of stereo gear, bigger rims and tires, sound deadener...hell I got extra EVERYTHING and then I went to the track in that trim on stock width streat tires 215/45-17s and made the times and trap speeds in my sig.
By gutting out my car I could have dropped an easy .75-1 second. in ET
 
Pope said:
But seriously, if you want a good cruising car that is still quick, and can be good in AutoX, stick with the contour
Click to expand...
I'd build a mustang for autox over a contour. Properly done, a fox body would be better than a contour.

Contour vs. mustang is a pretty stupid discussion. Completely different type of car.
 
The only benefit that i could see coming out of a mustang over a tour is that it's rear wheel drive. If my csvt was rwd that car would be perfect:) Accerlating through a corner/turn is hard in a fwd b/c if the wheels start to spin it's straight into the guard rail and if for some reason the back end gets loose it's difficult to correct. Not impossible, but difficult.
That is the only draw back i see to my car or any csvt is that it's fwd.There's a lot of things you can do with rwd and all wheel, your limited with fwd.
 
I think "If my SVTC were AWD, it would be perfect" is a lot more feasible, though still a large pipe dream for most.
 
novellino21 said:
if for some reason the back end gets loose it's difficult to correct. Not impossible, but difficult.
Click to expand...
Hmm, been pretty easy for me to control the rear end stepping out (which it has plenty of times). Usually just give it gas and a bit of steering input. In my zetec it was hard to control because it didn't have the power needed (I've spun it more than once), but the svt does good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top