SVT SNOB
Hard-core CEG'er
Out of curiosity what are your numbers from your ported 3L? I have had both setups and would never go back to a ported 3L.
Aaron
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
which IM for 3.0?
- Thread starter Bradness
- Start date
Out of curiosity what are your numbers from your ported 3L? I have had both setups and would never go back to a ported 3L.
Aaron
TRicker
Hard-core CEG'er
my SVT is running really lean and it pulls on top harder until 6000 then it falls on its face. i bet once i get it set up with a nice tune it will pull hard on top. i have a 04/05 full 3L with new style intake manifold. i used to have a 3L ported with svt cams/intakes. tried secondaries and no secondaries both felt mostly the same. i take my full 3L over it, as long as its got the newest style intake manifold and a good fuel system *(i have nautilus fuel rail mod) its also gotta at least have 04 cams and the 2.0 rockers.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
I thought the difference in the 04+ lift wasn't actually from the cam lobes, but from a slightly different fulcrum in the followers, giving a different lash.
SVT cams have a longer duration though, so they'd be good in an 04+ head.
what is the major difference with the newer IM's? will a newer UIM bolt up to an 02 LIM?
I was under the thinking that it was the escape and ST220 uim's that were the big difference.
I also keep seeing people say you can't use an escape uim, but there was a guy on these forums that made one fit, anybody remember that?
SVT cams have a longer duration though, so they'd be good in an 04+ head.
what is the major difference with the newer IM's? will a newer UIM bolt up to an 02 LIM?
I was under the thinking that it was the escape and ST220 uim's that were the big difference.
I also keep seeing people say you can't use an escape uim, but there was a guy on these forums that made one fit, anybody remember that?
Anyone can port in a few hours. It would take serious skill, time, and maybe a flow bench to optimize your new ports for flow... OEMS spend how much to get it right?
You've taken two specially tuned (for flow among other variables) ports that used to remain separate all the way in to the combustion chamber and dumping them into the head all willy nilly.
I used to argue the same thing you did... However UNLIKE you, ive built or helped install nearly every type of 3 liter; I have the experience with them all. I would never go back to a ported 3 liter. SVTSnob and I have had both and say the same thing: full 3 liter.
SVT components pull harder up top? yeah.... That didn't help Snob's SVTcammed car do anything but fall behind me (albeit slowly :laugh
Come back when you know what you're talking about, ok?
morbid
Hard-core CEG'er
The result of that debate is that the Ford documentation was wrong (again), and that the rff's were the same. The newer (2004+) 3L cams had more lift than the older ones.
The newer ones have separated plenums. I'm not sure if their capacity is any larger than the older UIM's.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
whats the benefit of the split plenums? something to do with inlet pulse phasing?
enduro
CEG'er
Would it be correct to assume that a full 3L setup would require less IM maintenance ( eg cleaning) than a ported setup ? And no IMRC to break down would be another huge benefit IMO.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
thats a good question, a question to go with it would be, how well does the sable/escape/ect IM take to seafoaming.
Correct, RFFS are the same, new cams have slightly more lift.
Should be no reason to seafoam. I've never been a fan of the process anyway. W/ the plastic manifolds I doubt you'll see a ton of residual buildup. If there is, the full 3 liters are so damn easy to break down and pull off to clean (even more so if you get rid of the stupid tree hugging EGR crap)
See above /\
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
uh, the EGR crap isn't just there for hugging trees, it actually adds performance.
I think your thinking of PCV crap, thats just there to save the friggin ozone.
[edit] forgot to add, seafoam cleans the intake valves and the inlet ports in the heads as well.
I think your thinking of PCV crap, thats just there to save the friggin ozone.
[edit] forgot to add, seafoam cleans the intake valves and the inlet ports in the heads as well.
Last edited:
I have 3 sets of cams on my workbench: 2004 and 2003 Taurus, 1998 SVT.
I have measured them all with a caliper, so not too precise, but the differences are large enough to plainly see.
All have 1.5" nominal base circles so when I measure the total span across an intake lobe I get the lobe lift within the measurement accuracy of my caliper.
Roughly, the total span of each is about:
1998 SVT 1.88"
2004 Taurus 1.84"
2003 Taurus 1.62"
From a lift perspective the 04 Taurus seems like an big improvement over the 2003. I'm going with them on my initial build. If I don't like them I'll have to do an "in car cam swap"...not appealing.
Swazo
Hard-core CEG'er
I've done an in-car cam swap on a CSVT and cold timed it in there too.
Not the funnest thing to do, and in all reality it would be faster to just pull the damn thing to do it.
Not the funnest thing to do, and in all reality it would be faster to just pull the damn thing to do it.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
No! You've been misinformed.
EGR does nothing for performance, it is shut off at WOT. It helps fuel economy / emissions @ part throttle. Some variable cam cars dont even use it because the cams can be tuned to compensate.
PCV is not crap, its beneficial when functioning properly and will run better, a vacuum pulled on the crankcase reduces aero drag on the crank.
Tune the car properly and drive it like it wants to be driven and you wont need to 'clean the inlet ports' because they'll be
ing spotless (like mine were / are)Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
Pretty close on the measurements, IIRC, I measured both the SVT and 04+ 3L cams at 1.86" and a set of 01 taurus cams about the same as you got too (don't recall the the exact number now, but I'm pretty sure I posted it back then) The angles and duration on the SVT cams are more aggressive than the 04+ cams, but the lift is the same obviously.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
No! You've been misinformed.
EGR does nothing for performance, it is shut off at WOT. It helps fuel economy / emissions @ part throttle. Some variable cam cars dont even use it because the cams can be tuned to compensate.
PCV is not crap, its beneficial when functioning properly and will run better, a vacuum pulled on the crankcase reduces aero drag on the crank.
Tune the car properly and drive it like it wants to be driven and you wont need to 'clean the inlet ports' because they'll be
agreed about the inlet port issue, but if you just toodle around mostly or run pig rich like most of these guys with no tune, and ta-da, gunk all in there.
as for exhaust gas recirculation, the exhaust gas acts as octane, actively controlable octane, that will allow higher compressions and/or more aggressive timing, thus allowing you to create more power.
PCV/EVAP on the otherhand, replaces what could be high density Air/fuel mixture with heated fuel vapor. we all know that cold fuel is much more dense than vapor, which is essentially steam.
the function of the pcv on crank case gas is only a good idea because the "draft" in the crank case reduces the accumulation of acidity on the oil, which prolongs the life of the bottom end. i wasn't suggesting to disconect the pcv, only that it sucks having to dump it into the intake.
not to mention, PCV is yet another source of crud in the intake system
biminiLX
Hard-core CEG'er
And that is exactly why I would only use the SVT cams in a 3L---I prefer the top end pull of this motor. As you mentioned the lifts are close but the duration/aggressiveness of the profiles is greater on the SVT. With a DOHC motor like this you'll get greater gains by duration than lift (which is ultimately limited). I know you know this, I was just pointing it out for others reading---eventhough the '04+ 3L cams and the SVTs are close in lift, the SVTs are more aggressive.
In a race or performance driving I would prefer the 5000-7500 powerband :shrug:. These cars have a pedal to the right, use it and get the motor in the right powerband and optimize the top end pull. The recent dyno tests w/ different intakes/SVT cams showed the SVT stuff down in average power but the highest above 6000 from what I recall.
Its all personal preference but I'd like to maximize the upper rpm range---in the planning stages of a maximized NA 3L for down the road and I'd like to use ported SVT heads/3L valves/SVT cams/the large LIM being discussed in the GB/maxed ported SVT UIM/65mm TB and tune it to 7500---should be fun :laugh:.
-J
Exhaust gas acts as an octane booster in part throttle; the only time its active. I don't know why you keep spouting performance benefits of EGR when its OFF AT WOT!!
If your PCV valve is working properly and you add a separator (I didn't have one) You won't get enough 'gunk' to matter.
Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
You are a tiny bit right here, but you have gone completely the wrong direction with it. EGR isn't about making power at all. EGR is used to re-introduce exhaust gases into the intake tract. Exhaust gases are essentially inert as far as the combustion process goes, so it replaces some of the oxygen in the incoming air charge, allowing less fuel to be injected and maintain a given air/fuel ratio. This improves fuel economy, and reduces the temperatures in the combustion chamber which also reduces NOx emissions. Because of the drop in temperature, ignition timing can be advanced a bit more to partially compensate for the lost power by the reduced fuel/air mixture quantity being burned. EGR is ONLY used under part throttle conditions to improve fuel economy, and reduce NOx emissions. EVERY calibration I have ever looked at, turns off EGR completely at WOT.
Again, a little bit of right, but you ran off into left field with it . . . First, I agree that PCV system can be a source of crud in the intake. Second, I agree that PCV helps with acidity of the oil by removing water vapor in the crankcase. But, as Pud pointed out, there are other very good reasons for the PCV system, not least of which is reducing windage in the crankcase, which has proven to reduce drag on the rotational parts, and consequently improve power by a small but measurable amount. As far as dumping into the intake, there isn't really another readily available way to draw a vacuum on the system without installing a secondary vacuum pump (which has been done in a number of applications before). A good way of managing the "crude" is to put an inline filter/trap into the PCV line. And lastly, the volume of air coming through the PCV is very very small compared to the volume of fresh air coming in, especially at WOT, so I wouldn't worry too much about any vapor coming through there, besides, the water vapor provides additional mass that expands from the heat of combustion, lending a bit of help in pushing the piston down.
As for the EVAP, I've never looked really closely, but I'm pretty sure the majority of engine calibrations turn it off at WOT also, so the power concerns are basically pointless.
KAOS_3.0
Hard-core CEG'er
agreed, but in order to delete the EGR and not detonate the engine, you'll have to retard ignition timing and add fuel.
ignition advance= more power
more fuel= a little power gain, but much worse economy.
it just seems dumb to me.
on the pcv separator, where can I find one for my 02 sable engine? I'd be interested in that since it probably can't cost too much. I'll have to find one soon though since the intakes will be off by tomorrow evening.