3liter vs hybrid vs COP revealed

[TRicker]

As far as an intake manifold is concerned, you guys may be looking past or i'm not seeing where you are talking about runner length. the Oval port intake manifolds have what i would call an intermediate length runner setup. it will flow a lot of air but it's designed to make torque in a low to midrange RPM and have enough air to flow at high RPM but it doesnt exactly excel in it.

i'm leaving the cams out of this right now just to stay on topic.

The SVT intake manifold with the secondaries is i real nice piece. it's got the advantages of both style intake manifolds. it has long runners and short runners. of course this manifold with the secondary runners closed will not flow as much as an oval port. but when the secondaries open, its substantially flows better. the idea of this (obviously guys, think about it a little please?) is to SCREAM on top. thats why it's matched up with the SVT cams. to build a nice torque curve in high rpms where the engine is meant to be run on this platform. the secondary setup is used to gain as much low end torque as possible by using only the runners that give the best low end torque. so i say, the SVT manifolds are better. that's my opinion. Now, the best manifold would be a tubular manifold with changable runner lengths so we all could change the lengths to get the type of power curve out of it that we desire. i guess someone will have to make that for me

 

[SVTNupe]

I think an interesting question was brought up that I haven't seen an answer to regarding the SVT manifold. If it was so good, why was it only on the contour and the ST220, Jaguar X-Type, Mazda 6 and Lincoln LS? It seems the Taurus type manifold is the chosen manifold of choice and all of these vehicles were equipped with manual transmissions. Please correct me if the platforms I mentioned are incorrect.

 

[Pudmunkie]

I think an interesting question was brought up that I haven't seen an answer to regarding the SVT manifold. If it was so good, why was it only on the contour and the ST220, Jaguar X-Type, Mazda 6 and Lincoln LS? It seems the Taurus type manifold is the chosen manifold of choice and all of these vehicles were equipped with manual transmissions. Please correct me if the platforms I mentioned are incorrect.

Plastic manifolds are easier to make, that particular manifold also works very well for ATX cars because there is no runner timing (in terms of upper and lower... its ment for both). The bulk of the cars you mentioned (besides the ST220) are ATX cars, and it doesnt make sense financially to have two different intake manifolds for a few thousand manual trans equipped models.

Or at least thats how I reason it.

 

[TRicker]

yup. casting aluminum and then extrude honing it costs a lot more than molding a plastic manifold and calling it a day. cheapness keeps car manufacturers alive, we've got to respect that.

 

[SVTNupe]

yup. casting aluminum and then extrude honing it costs a lot more than molding a plastic manifold and calling it a day. cheapness keeps car manufacturers alive, we've got to respect that.

I can respect that. It just seems odd that they changed the entire design and went to what many are calling an inferior manifold. Why not just keep the same mold but use a different material, in this case plastic, if it was cheaper to manufacture?

 

[BrApple]

I can respect that. It just seems odd that they changed the entire design and went to what many are calling an inferior manifold. Why not just keep the same mold but use a different material, in this case plastic, if it was cheaper to manufacture?

maybe it has something to do with the design differences between teh two. Our 98 windstar had a plastic UIM kinda similar in design to the contour, in the fact that it had primary and secondary runners. It had to be about 3 to 4 inches tall iirc. That peice was pretty big and there was alot of space for it in the engine bay, the taruas on the other had wouldn't have as much engine bay space so that design is more compact for packaging.

For that matter it has been pointed out that many of Fords engine now use the same design. So there you go another cost saving methode is to make more parts the same across the board so you can make more in bulk and at a lower price. Would also lead to the reason the contour/cougar UIM was never change as they knew the lines would be ending so why spend the money on retooling for these vehicles

 

[warmonger]

I can respect that. It just seems odd that they changed the entire design and went to what many are calling an inferior manifold. Why not just keep the same mold but use a different material, in this case plastic, if it was cheaper to manufacture?

They just cheapened it up.

If you look back at the evolution of both manifolds, the dual runner intake was used on the 2.5L where low-end torque was going to be a problem. When they went to the 3L in the taurus they used the cheaper common plenum design.

What many people don't realize is that the original taurus design used and IMRC split runner system with an ovalport UPPER IM! This was a good compromise between the type of plenum and retaining the IMRC system for boosted low-end torque. IMRC system adds some complexity but it is hands down the best way Aside from VVT of keeping the broader torque curve.
Cost cutting meant they went to plastic and ovalports. When paired with the ATX this is not a bad thing. If you want a broad torque curve then you would want the benefits of the dual runner intake.

I have several datalogs from the xcal2 that show what the load on an engine looks like under WOT. I've taken screenshots to show the results. I took logs of svt cams in a ovalport, ovalport cams in an ovalport and believe it or not I retrofitted ovalport cams into a full 2.5L SVT motor just to see what happens.
The best part of the results is that the 2.5L SVT upper intake manifold stretched out the load curve of the ovalport cams! It allowed the engine to still breath deep and the load did not fall off like it does when the ovalport cams are paired with the ovalport intake.
This is clear proof to me that the ovalport manifolds are not tuned to higher rpm flow and not capable as flowing as much as the dual runner intake.
I have to go to work but I will post up proof tonight.

 

[SVTNupe]

They just cheapened it up.

What many people don't realize is that the original taurus design used and IMRC split runner system with an ovalport UPPER IM!

I thought the original design was a split port intake on the heads similar to the 2.5L? That's what caused me a lot of headaches back in 2001 when I was originally doing my 3L conversion as I bought a new 01 3L which had the oval intakes.

 

[TourDeForce]

I thought the original design was a split port intake on the heads similar to the 2.5L? That's what caused me a lot of headaches back in 2001 when I was originally doing my 3L conversion as I bought a new 01 3L which had the oval intakes.

That's what warmonger said. The heads & LIM were split port with an IMRC. And he is right, I didn't know the UPPER Intake Manifold on the old '98, '99 Tauri were oval port... onder:

 

[SVTNupe]

They just cheapened it up.

If you look back at the evolution of both manifolds, the dual runner intake was used on the 2.5L where low-end torque was going to be a problem. When they went to the 3L in the taurus they used the cheaper common plenum design.

What many people don't realize is that the original taurus design used and IMRC split runner system with an ovalport UPPER IM! This was a good compromise between the type of plenum and retaining the IMRC system for boosted low-end torque. IMRC system adds some complexity but it is hands down the best way Aside from VVT of keeping the broader torque curve.
Cost cutting meant they went to plastic and ovalports. When paired with the ATX this is not a bad thing. If you want a broad torque curve then you would want the benefits of the dual runner intake.

I have several datalogs from the xcal2 that show what the load on an engine looks like under WOT. I've taken screenshots to show the results. I took logs of svt cams in a ovalport, ovalport cams in an ovalport and believe it or not I retrofitted ovalport cams into a full 2.5L SVT motor just to see what happens.
The best part of the results is that the 2.5L SVT upper intake manifold stretched out the load curve of the ovalport cams! It allowed the engine to still breath deep and the load did not fall off like it does when the ovalport cams are paired with the ovalport intake.
This is clear proof to me that the ovalport manifolds are not tuned to higher rpm flow and not capable as flowing as much as the dual runner intake.
I have to go to work but I will post up proof tonight.

Another question, are you saying that the "oval cams" with the SVT IM is the ideal solution in the straight 3L? By the way I have SVT cams with the plastic oval manifolds.

 

[todras]

I didn't know the UPPER Intake Manifold on the old '98, '99 Tauri were oval port... onder:

Because they weren't. Split port.

 

[Bugzuki]

From what I could tell the arguement here was about the cost of engine swap versus the gains from the swap. I agree that pretty much any swap you do can get more HP/Tq the stock.

From what it looks like one side is saying that if you have more power down low you will get off the line quicker and get to speed sooner. While the other side holds that more power up high helps you overtake the previous situation. Both of these points of view are valid and have there place.

If you autocross a lot you will probably want more low end - while if you drag race you will want more top end. Also for drifting you usually want more top end, but since that is hard to do in a Contour we will leave that out.

I did a 3.0L swap in my car. I choose to do a 3.0L block and heads with SVT cams and intake. Yes, part of the reason I did this was to save the look of the SVT - I think it looks a lot better then the Taurus intake.

The outcome is kind of what I expected. I do not have a lot of low end torque, but when the engine gets above 4000 RPM under full throttle I do get some chirping from the front tires on rolling starts. I really like the way mine turned out. I can drive it easy and it is nice or I can lean on it and it really steps up - if I have the right gear at the time.

For my swap I spent about $1262 for the engine and all the parts. My price is high because - I paid $700 for a 3000 mile 2003 Sable engine. I also bought a new 2004 Escape oil pan, new head gaskets, Tons of other gaskets, new cam shaft chain guides, new head bolts, 2 of something I have listed as "insuff s" for $54.64 each and lots of other little stuff. I also developed some intake plates that drastically reduce the time to port the intake runners and eliminate the need to use JB weld. I think the plates have helped many people build there engines better and quicker, but that is not this discussion.

I am not trying to offend any one here but I need to share my view on the Dyno graph. I think that a time graph has meaning. It shows how an engine/car will perform over time. This data could be used to show that a car could be faster then another. I would like to quote the graph supplied in its unaltered form. I will pull it in here so you do not have to look back to the top and find the link to the other site.

If you look at this graph it appears to me that the car with the red graph gets to 5252 sooner then the car with the blue graph (9 seconds as apposed to 10 seconds, respectively) The red graph also gets to the top RPM sooner (14 seconds as apposed to 15.5 seconds). But the problem is that the graph does not state what gear was used, which graph is for which car, what the maximum RPM was or what the starting RPM was. So, it is hard to come to a conclusions about which one is better.

I do not really have time to go search four pages on the other forum for this information. I chose to use this forum for my information and do so I don't think that discussion should be pulled from other forums to prove points. If some people chose to jump back and forth - that is there option, but I don't want to.

I applaud everyone that spends the time and effort to make a product and I am sure that everyone is going to think that their idea is the best. I also think that everyone is hurt when someone else comes out with something that competes with there idea, or someone came out with an idea first. I felt that way about the LIM mod someone has, because is competes with my plates. But, life is not fair. I should have come out with a LIM, but my idea was inovative at the time. There are many other things I wish I would have thought of, but there is nothing I can do about it. Bill Gates is not going to stop selling Windows just because I wish I came out with it before him.

Everytime someone tries something new it give new possiblities to the plateform that might not have been there before. Done with my rant.


Side note: Pentium Pros were sweet, but I have always been partial to AMD processor.:drool:

 

[BuckeyeSVT]

From what I could tell the arguement here was about the cost of engine swap versus the gains from the swap. I agree that pretty much any swap you do can get more HP/Tq the stock.

From what it looks like one side is saying that if you have more power down low you will get off the line quicker and get to speed sooner. While the other side holds that more power up high helps you overtake the previous situation. Both of these points of view are valid and have there place.

If you autocross a lot you will probably want more low end - while if you drag race you will want more top end. Also for drifting you usually want more top end, but since that is hard to do in a Contour we will leave that out.

I did a 3.0L swap in my car. I choose to do a 3.0L block and heads with SVT cams and intake. Yes, part of the reason I did this was to save the look of the SVT - I think it looks a lot better then the Taurus intake.

The outcome is kind of what I expected. I do not have a lot of low end torque, but when the engine gets above 4000 RPM under full throttle I do get some chirping from the front tires on rolling starts. I really like the way mine turned out. I can drive it easy and it is nice or I can lean on it and it really steps up - if I have the right gear at the time.

For my swap I spent about $1262 for the engine and all the parts. My price is high because - I paid $700 for a 3000 mile 2003 Sable engine. I also bought a new 2004 Escape oil pan, new head gaskets, Tons of other gaskets, new cam shaft chain guides, new head bolts, 2 of something I have listed as "insuff s" for $54.64 each and lots of other little stuff. I also developed some intake plates that drastically reduce the time to port the intake runners and eliminate the need to use JB weld. I think the plates have helped many people build there engines better and quicker, but that is not this discussion.

I am not trying to offend any one here but I need to share my view on the Dyno graph. I think that a time graph has meaning. It shows how an engine/car will perform over time. This data could be used to show that a car could be faster then another. I would like to quote the graph supplied in its unaltered form. I will pull it in here so you do not have to look back to the top and find the link to the other site.

If you look at this graph it appears to me that the car with the red graph gets to 5252 sooner then the car with the blue graph (9 seconds as apposed to 10 seconds, respectively) The red graph also gets to the top RPM sooner (14 seconds as apposed to 15.5 seconds). But the problem is that the graph does not state what gear was used, which graph is for which car, what the maximum RPM was or what the starting RPM was. So, it is hard to come to a conclusions about which one is better.

I do not really have time to go search four pages on the other forum for this information. I chose to use this forum for my information and do so I don't think that discussion should be pulled from other forums to prove points. If some people chose to jump back and forth - that is there option, but I don't want to.

I applaud everyone that spends the time and effort to make a product and I am sure that everyone is going to think that their idea is the best. I also think that everyone is hurt when someone else comes out with something that competes with there idea, or someone came out with an idea first. I felt that way about the LIM mod someone has, because is competes with my plates. But, life is not fair. I should have come out with a LIM, but my idea was inovative at the time. There are many other things I wish I would have thought of, but there is nothing I can do about it. Bill Gates is not going to stop selling Windows just because I wish I came out with it before him.

Everytime someone tries something new it give new possiblities to the plateform that might not have been there before. Done with my rant.


Side note: Pentium Pros were sweet, but I have always been partial to AMD processor.:drool:

Ask a reasonable question, get a reasonable answer.

Your answers are 2200RPM to 6900RPM. Red is Straight 3L, Blue is Hybrid 3L.

35MPH to 119MPH. 4TH gear roll on both.

I'm not selling anything here, never was. I'm killing their "hype" of their yet to be released "product". I'm selling stock if that's something to sell...lol. That's all. I'm glad I have thick skin...

-Dom

 

[Bugzuki]

Now on to the questions about intake design. We all agree that Ford went to the plastic manifold for cost savings.

I had a 96 Sable. The manifold looked similar to the current plastic manifold, but was aluminum and had dual runners with secondary valves. A major difference between that manifold and the SVT manifold was that the primary and secondary runners were the same length - denoting a preference to low end torque.

Everyone seems to be forgetting the Taurus SHO had the original Yamaha designed intake system that was quite similar to the SVTC intake.

This design is good in two ways:

1. At low RPM there is a single runner that creates more turbulance - which causes a more complete mix of the fuel/air. Then in the higher RPM range the secondary runners are open as well. This allows the needed air to have torque at the upper ranges. (Once my secondaries did not open, and it felt like the car just lost it breath.)
2. I have talked about this before, but again never hurts. "Resonate Ram Tuning" This is an old idea, but it continues to work. At low RPM ranges longer runners have air resonance and at higher RPM ranges short runners have resonance. That is way they have two lengths instead of one. The theory is that the air bounces off the closing valve and a shock wave travels back an forth up the runner - eventually arriving at the valve when it opens causing a burst of air into the cylinder - which helps draw in the air behind it. That is why an infinitely variable manifold would be so nice.

I prefer the SVT manifold to the plastic Taurus manifold, eventhough it is an older technology. It was design more for what I want in my car. With the larger displacement it could probably use a little more capacity, but a little FI could help that. Or, I could look into putting a SHO intake on the contour. That would take a lot of work though, since it was a 90 degree engine.

 

[Bugzuki]

Ask a reasonable question, get a reasonable answer.

Your answers are 2200RPM to 6900RPM. Red is Straight 3L, Blue is Hybrid 3L.

35MPH to 119MPH. 4TH gear roll on both.

I'm not selling anything here, never was. I'm killing their "hype" of their yet to be released "product". I'm selling stock if that's something to sell...lol. That's all. I'm glad I have thick skin...

-Dom

Thanks for the speedy reply.

So, what the data appears to be saying is that if these two cars were in a drag race from 35mph to 120mph in 4th gear the stock three liter would have the advantage.

The question I have to ask is - when would anyone have that race. A more likely race would be one with the same mph range, but the racers would start in 2nd gear and shift through third and then in to forth to reach 120mph.

Is there anyway to get a time graph of the two cars in that race, with all shifts on the same graph? I am sure that there would be a different outcome. Due to the fact that the blue car would spend more time in its power band which is higher then the red cars.

 

[beyondloadedSE]

Thanks for the speedy reply.

So, what the data appears to be saying is that if these two cars were in a drag race from 35mph to 120mph in 4th gear the stock three liter would have the advantage.

The question I have to ask is - when would anyone have that race. A more likely race would be one with the same mph range, but the racers would start in 2nd gear and shift through third and then in to forth to reach 120mph.

Is there anyway to get a time graph of the two cars in that race, with all shifts on the same graph? I am sure that there would be a different outcome. Due to the fact that the blue car would spend more time in its power band which is higher then the red cars.

From a drag racing stand point, it seems like the full 3.0L would get the jump, but as soon as the 1-2 to shift occurs, the full 3.0L falls flat on its face since its no longer making power after about 5300 RPMS which is where most of the race is going to be had anyways. 3.0L hybrid continues to pulls on strong for the win imho.

 

[BurritaSVT]

Bugsky thanks for your great info you supplied because some forget about the manifold how they were tuned for resonate tuning they even used them in the past where they made dodge intake called H beams to create a resonate pulse to push more air into the combustion chamber.

The 3 liter oval port from the data supplied seemed to be tuned in the mid range on the intake. ANd of course the escape cams/ taurus/ etc were cut and made to match the plastic oval port intake.

But the big misconception here is that most everyone here thought that the big overlapped cams made the SVT breathe up top unlike the escape cams. But as we all know that on a NA car we have nothing pushing airflow into the motor beside intake resonance at a certain range. We have data (LOAD) on the same engine where we took the escape cams and put them in the same SVT LIM/UIM to see what load is. Now load is determined by rpm and CFM on motor the higher the load the more air the engine received into the combustion chamber creating more torque which is direct relation to HP. The timing does not affect the load calculation it only gives you more torque if you can ramp it up with the increase airflow.
http://www.nautilusperformance.com/id61.html

tom attempted to prove the load difference but he left me with small pics so I will download them or clear them up when I get a chance.

But the bottom line here is that since the SVT has two runners one tuned for low rpms which you can see the SVT UIM/LIM make more torque before 3k and then drops off due to the imrc and transition of the intake tuning. Then the shorter runner tuned for 5k begins to breathe up top. Therefoe the cams has nothing to do with the airflow up top since the airflow stayed the same even with the escape cams so the only reason we are seeing the escape cams in the oval port fall off at redline is because the intake manifold was not meant to flow up top like the SVT since it was never tuned for that rpm range. And if you put in the SVT cams they still decline more up top but have more overlap to draw in more air out of its untuned resonance range.

The only thing I want to see from buckeye right now to clear up the seconds theory is a mph graph so I can make sure the tires OD or MPH was matched with the rpms not saying you rigged it at all. I just see the second theory as being a misleading plot if the cars tires are different since the smaller tires OD will accelerate faster due to leverage. Heck I would have doen the same as you buckeye and if the rpms 5252 on a MPH relation line up perfect then I will say you are right completely only if you race someone from 2200 rpm *(never)

Please show me the MPH plot so I can point out what I suspect is making this seconds plot wrong in theory. I did say please.......JJ

joey

 

[BuckeyeSVT]

Here's a better idea, give me a dyno plot (.drf) if available of a comparable "Hybrid combination". Whether it's with an SVT intake on it with oval ports, or all stock hybrid with NO HEAD WORK. Like I said originally, this is a comparison between a $3000+ engine build and a $1300 engine build. To make the matter "fair" please provide me with a suitable "match" to what you think would be "fair" against the straight 2005 3L.

Then I think the arguement could be settled flat and done. The Hybrid finished the MPH graph in the other "setup" a mile and a half faster. However it also over-revved 60RPM (which can be verified from the dyno RPM graph) over the straight 3L (possibly due to the higher HP). Still, that means little.. What can be drawn from that is that the engine is "catching up". Where that stands in other gears is unknown. I am really taking finished tuned dyno plots and comparing - I don't have a dyno in my backyard to test every conceivable combination. No one does.

I like everyone else here (and the other sites) still want to see your "Split port to Oval port" idea on an engine and swapped out for factory oval port intakes to see the difference. I'm not running Escape cams, and don't say they are the same - The part #'s are different. I did check before I spoke (Call Bill Jenkins if you don't believe me, he did the cross referencing). Technically, your 3L Escape bottom end, and camshafts are different from the 04/05 engines. Technically - Just to make a solid point - There is no difference between the part numbers of a 3L block from 00-03 or the camshafts from 00-03 between a Taurus, Sable or Escape. So pushing the Escape stuff is in reality pushing Taurus stuff - Follow me?

-Dom

 

[BurritaSVT]

Here's a better idea, give me a dyno plot (.drf) if available of a comparable "Hybrid combination". Whether it's with an SVT intake on it with oval ports, or all stock hybrid with NO HEAD WORK. Like I said originally, this is a comparison between a $3000+ engine build and a $1300 engine build. To make the matter "fair" please provide me with a suitable "match" to what you think would be "fair" against the straight 2005 3L.

Then I think the arguement could be settled flat and done. The Hybrid finished the MPH graph in the other "setup" a mile and a half faster. However it also over-revved 60RPM (which can be verified from the dyno RPM graph) over the straight 3L (possibly due to the higher HP). Still, that means little.. What can be drawn from that is that the engine is "catching up". Where that stands in other gears is unknown. I am really taking finished tuned dyno plots and comparing - I don't have a dyno in my backyard to test every conceivable combination. No one does.

I like everyone else here (and the other sites) still want to see your "Split port to Oval port" idea on an engine and swapped out for factory oval port intakes to see the difference. I'm not running Escape cams, and don't say they are the same - The part #'s are different. I did check before I spoke (Call Bill Jenkins if you don't believe me, he did the cross referencing). Technically, your 3L Escape bottom end, and camshafts are different from the 04/05 engines. Technically - Just to make a solid point - There is no difference between the part numbers of a 3L block from 00-03 or the camshafts from 00-03 between a Taurus, Sable or Escape. So pushing the Escape stuff is in reality pushing Taurus stuff - Follow me?

-Dom

Yes we are right now building the 3 liter since we had an extra one in the shop. I will supply you with a gutted precats no head work and a cold air intake like your Ram saying you did not touch the heads. I glad we steered our difference to a more helpful manner by challenging the the setup. In the meantime I only have the true split port manifold with splt port heads at 9.8:1 Cr since Tom opened up the chamber it would be even since the CR is the same but it will really show how the Split port it a better head hands down if you are curious to see that dyno plus it did not have a intake at all just a tune. I will gather the info but in the meanwhile if anyone here with a tune has this setup feel free to show it. And just for your knowledge precats gutted give 9whp gain just so you know jusy shy of headers.

If I can get the mph dyno attached here since I would ask you for the file and I will quickly just right click the rpm select mph and save in jpeg. Joey

 

[BurritaSVT]

Here is a example of a 3 liter SVT heads chamber grinded out to CR of 9:9.1 which was done for turbo car. So the CR are exactly the same and it will show that it made more power across the board with just gutted precats no ram intake etc. This just shows you how well the SVT torque is great across the board. We will get you a with oval port heads and my LIM mod dyno which was part of the plan anyway for info.

Here is the dyno of the stock 3 liter we mentioned up top total cost was less then $1000 with all new head bolts gasket valve job (cutting 3 liter valves too)

now I want you to look at two different cars here notice that the car mph is off by 5 mph at just 80-90mph so the tires OD made that much difference at that speed it will even get as high as 10mph+ over 100mph and before you ask how we know this look at where the torque curve on both cars crosses over their hp curve that is where 5252 rpm is so that is your reference point where you see that the cars will pull to a rev limiter at different rates( secs) since the leverage is easier on the car with smaller tires and will have less mph too. check it out my car and Toms car in mph

I hope you are seeing this because now we cannot do what you did in secs since now we are more than certain these cars do not have the same weight to turn or leverage or resistance due to the tire size. If you want to bench race the two cars use mph since in real life if cars are equal in weight on the street you can take a 30mph to 115mph run then time the car is quicker.
Now if you noticed on the last chart you would have thought they both pulled to the same rpm since they lined up the mph guess what nope they were not so hmmmm I bet yo are asking how they end the same spot on the mph but not on the rpm which is right here

Now this is why I say time is irrelevant due to these paremeters which is what I am asking you for in mph between the two plots you have shown.

here is a secs one for you to have comparison too

notice it took the car 13 secs to accelerate all the way too 44mph to 110mph o and it took 8 secs to go from 42 mph to 86 mph but we can't compare that since our dyno have different resistance which mph would also be affected by that too but i am sure they are not to far off.