hylix
CEG'er
I was just thinking about a way to squeeze out some high RPM ponies from these engines. Something that maybe Rwalton, or Pole120 could use. This forum is accustomed to the hack-n-match of "compatible" parts like my awesome SVT UIM mated to my hacked oval ports heads for example:help:. But I had a thought, and that thought may be a little less "hack" and a much better "match".
First, a couple of points/rumors that led me to this hair-brained idea:
So what if you took an NPG 3.5 block, Fitted 2001+ 2.5 heads, SVT cams, and stole the crank+rods from an AJ20? You'd basicly have a ~3.0L hybrid. With bigger bore, shorter stroke, and high compression. It kinda seems like a winning combination for something like open road racing. The questionable part is the splitport UIM volume. Which is lacking a bit from what I understand.
VERY rough calculations look like:
Could the exaggerated over-square configuration be a winner??
I dare someone to buy an NPG 3.5 block for the experiment.:laugh:
Yes, I realize CEG members likely couldn't (or wouldn't) afford the NPG 3.5, and sourcing the 2.0 stuff would be difficult, but I'd like to spur some intelligent conversation. Something that CEG hasn't really had a whole lot of in a while.
I know, I know, the big question is "Why?"...
...Because I get bored at work. That's why.
First, a couple of points/rumors that led me to this hair-brained idea:
- I recall reading somewhere (maybe a post of DemonSVT's?), that the 2.5 heads+larger valves 'should' flow more volume than the 3.0 heads.
- 2001+ Cougar heads have proper oil drains, solving the oil starvation issue
- NPG has a 3.5 block.
- The Jaguar X-type 2.0 (AJ20) is a descendant of the duratec25/30
- The SVT cams have great high RPM performace
So what if you took an NPG 3.5 block, Fitted 2001+ 2.5 heads, SVT cams, and stole the crank+rods from an AJ20? You'd basicly have a ~3.0L hybrid. With bigger bore, shorter stroke, and high compression. It kinda seems like a winning combination for something like open road racing. The questionable part is the splitport UIM volume. Which is lacking a bit from what I understand.
VERY rough calculations look like:
Code:
displacement bore stroke Appx. Cyl. Vol. Appx CC Dis.
2.0 81.6 66.8 344713 2068
2.5 82.4 79.5 418334 2510
3.0 89 79.5 488032 2928
3.5 97 79.5 579712 3478
3.0 97 66.8 487103 2922
Could the exaggerated over-square configuration be a winner??
I dare someone to buy an NPG 3.5 block for the experiment.:laugh:
Yes, I realize CEG members likely couldn't (or wouldn't) afford the NPG 3.5, and sourcing the 2.0 stuff would be difficult, but I'd like to spur some intelligent conversation. Something that CEG hasn't really had a whole lot of in a while.
I know, I know, the big question is "Why?"...
...Because I get bored at work. That's why.