Sheesh, I got flamed to hell for that post. Good thing I don't check the board often... Course I'm sunburned today, so maybe it's about time I read this flaming. Now, since I'm finally responding, maybe to counter some of the flames... This should be fun.
First thing, 190 horse at the wheels isn't bad, 180 ish torque at the wheels isn't bad either. But from the post, I (course I had just glanced) read it as a 3L conversion, in which case, that wasn't going to impress me. I've heard a lot on this board about the monstrous gains the 3L conversion yeilds, though rare to see the conversion, and at 193 horse I think it was? well, stock, the SVT's get around there at the crank, depending on year. Figure with mtx, you'd see around 150-170 at the wheels, depending on the vehicle, and how lucky you were with your car's quality. Means between 20 and 40 horse gain. Useful gains, but didn't seem awe inspiring considering all the raves about the 3L. Now, I didn't notice it was a prep for a larger change to come, I misread cause I skim things. Nothing like being jumped on for skimming over a post. :p And who was it that commented on the "massive" V8 to power my car? At 279 cubic inches (2 less than Ford's 4.6) I'm on the relatively small side of the V8 market. At near 300 horsepower at the crank, my 4.6 is one of the more efficient V8's on the market, power wise, though not the most efficient. (Not sure who carries the most efficient hp/liter ratio in the V8 market, and not going to fake it.) And to who decided it'd be fun to call me ignorant because I wasn't terrified of 190 horse at the wheels, sheesh. Someone also mentioned that the 190 horse 180 torque would move the contour around rather well, and that they didn't need the V8 my big car needs. No kidding, at 2 tons, my baby's no lightweight.
Tons'o fun. :p I like the numbers to start, but they're not real impressive. Yet
Good luck on the rest of the work man. (I'm not interested in a flame war, especially if I enter it sunburned. :p )
