Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications 3.0L Duratec about to buy 2001 3L - any constructive advice re: plan?

I'm ready early next week to take the plunge and buy a 2001 3L. Any useful criticism of my
plan before I plunk down the cash is most welcome! Please excuse the long windedness -
Warmonger has competition from me in that department!

The plan is to start with a straight swap - 3L block, LIM, UIM, PCM, fuel pump - scavenge oil
pan/pickup and timing chain cover from 2.5. I'm planning on sticking with as close to the stock
3L as possible because by my reading of the dyno results nobody except DavidZ has really been
able to get more than a bit beyond the stock power/torque until after 5000 RPM - head work
(including SVT cams) helps a lot between 5000 and 6700, but that's a lot of extra work and it
increases the probability of having to move to some sort of aftermarket engine management
(I like the idea of being able to at least start with a PCM that the calibration engineers spend
their thousands of hours on). Plus when I'm at the track I usually short shift at 6000 anyway
in a bid to increase my engine life! I'll see where I get to with the base 3L and some bolt ons
(my 2.5" exhaust, a y-pipe, gutted precats, and possibly a larger TB). My next project (always
need a route forward or I'll get bored) can be to install SVT cams and do some head
porting while the heads are dissambled to take care of that 5000 to 6700 RPM range. If anyone
feels that there is a proven way to get to peak torques beyond the 180 to 190 ft-lb mark then
I may have to rethink and do more up front. If I can get to a peak TQ of 185 and a
peak HP of 180 at the wheels without the head work then I'll be happy. I'd sure like to understand
the details of how the 2002 LS gets to a peak torque (at crank) of 215 and the Jag S-type to 221 - at
least there's an upgrade path if LS or Jag heads ever become available down the line.

Of course there is some complexity to be suffered - first I need to switch to a returnless fuel
system - swap fuel pumps and there will have to be some rejigging between the fuel supply
line and the rail on the LIM. I'll also have to go through the wiring diagrams on the PCM to make
sure that there is a 1:1 correspondance between the pins - I can either move to the 3L
harness if there are too many changes or stick with the stock harness and perhaps a few
custom routings. And then there's the IAT that needs to be moved from the top of the UIM.

I think the first stage will be to stick the 3L LIM and modified UIM on top of the 2.5L block and
at the same time put in the 3L PCM and fuel system. I'll probably enlist someprofessional help with
the fuel plumbing. I'll get the car running and then drive to HMS for the actual engine swap (and
Quaife install). The third stage will come probably in the next year - SVT cam install and head work.

Any last minute constructive criticism or advice most welcome.

By the way, any issues particular to 2001? I was told by the wrecker that the timing chain cover is
Different than the 2000, but I believe there are at least 2 others who have used 2001's and I've
Nothing about not being able to fit the 2.5 cover - difference probably due to change in location
of water pump.

Eric

On 2001 3.0L engines, the front cover depends on the vehicle. The 2001 3.0L Escape/Tribute engine looks more like a 2.5L because it has the power steering bracket sticking through the front cover/valley area. The Taurus engine does not have the pwr steering bracket but the holes are still on the block for it. So you should be just fine.

The plan is to start with a straight swap - 3L block, LIM, UIM, PCM, fuel pump - scavenge oil
pan/pickup and timing chain cover from 2.5. I'm planning on sticking with as close to the stock
3L as possible because by my reading of the dyno results nobody except DavidZ has really been
able to get more than a bit beyond the stock power/torque until after 5000 RPM - head work
(including SVT cams) helps a lot between 5000 and 6700, but that's a lot of extra work and it
increases the probability of having to move to some sort of aftermarket engine management
(I like the idea of being able to at least start with a PCM that the calibration engineers spend
their thousands of hours on).

Huh?

Why do you think you need to use a 3L PCM and Fuel pump?

I got 240hp using my stock stuff...



Of course there is some complexity to be suffered - first I need to switch to a returnless fuel
system - swap fuel pumps and there will have to be some rejigging between the fuel supply
line and the rail on the LIM. I'll also have to go through the wiring diagrams on the PCM to make
sure that there is a 1:1 correspondance between the pins - I can either move to the 3L
harness if there are too many changes or stick with the stock harness and perhaps a few
custom routings. And then there's the IAT that needs to be moved from the top of the UIM.


Why do you need to switch to a returnless fuel
system?

I just bolted up my 98 2.5L timing chain cover up to my 2001 3L (block & heads) last night with no problems. Everything lines up.

Thanks for the reassurance re: 2001 timing chain cover. And thanks David for questioning my assumptions - that's what I'm looking for before I put down the $.

I don't "need" the 3L PCM, but I figure I might as well since it will be calibrated against the 3L MAF, the #24 injectors, and will have the right fuel maps for WOT. As for the fuel pump, I gather that it is different for a returnless system, and I'm proposing going returnless so that I can leave the 3L LIM and injectors as are and have the 3L PCM know what it's driving. I may be making an incorrect assupmtion about the link between the PCM and injector style - are the signals put out by the PCM for the injectors any different for return vs. returnless injectors? If not, then I could stick with the 3L PCM and instead have the LIM modified for return style and swap in #24 return.

In the event that I do go with the returnless pump, I'm now figuring that there is a low probability of the Taurus pump fitting as if in the Contour tank - probably better off getting pump from 2000 returnless SVT - does anyone know how much fuel it flows? I believe the Taurus pump flows 120 L/hour.

Regarding the PCM, I went through the pinouts for the 1998 Contour and Taurus (still waiting for 2001 disk to arrive) for the 104 pin connector on the PCM - there are a lot of similarities, but also many differences. Of the 75 connected pins, at least 20 will have to be re-routed - e.g. on the 98 Contour pins 20, 70, 93, 94, 95, and 96 address the fuel injectors, while on the 98 Taurus the pins are 73, 74, 75, 99, 100, and 101. I'm thinking that it's probably easier to wire together a switcher using a male and female version of the connectors (trying to figure out who supplied those to Ford) and then leave the 2.5 harness as is in the car.

Eric

Unless you have a ATX I dont think your gonna want a 3L pcm. I wouldn't change the fuel system either.

Why would it matter whether it was an ATX or MTX???

Based on the pinout the PCM for MTX/ATX are the same - in the ATX case there are signals sent to a tranny module to instruct it when to shift, but for the MTX there should be no corresponding wires in the harness. There is a signal that tells the PCM that the shifter is in 'N' or 'P' for the ATX - that is the same pin that is used in the MTX to signal that the clutch is depressed - in both cases that's used at startup to allow current to flow to the starter. The only issue I can see with MTX vs. ATX is whether the PCM does anything funky with the fuel or ignition at the points it thinks the ATX (that isn't really there) is being signalled (by signals that don't go anywhere) to shift.

By the way, for anyone with their PCM or harness handy, is there any indication of a manufacturer's name on the PCM connector, e.g. AMP, Molex, etc.?

Any more thoughts on "gotchas" if I go returnless with the 2000 2.5L SVT fuel pump? Will a PCM for returnless let me stay return or do I have to go returnless if I want to use the PCM?

Eric

Ford have 'sole rights' on all connectors so no aftermarket or OEM is allowed to sell them 'loose'..only Ford dealers...

I have to stick by the stock pcm. After all that I have done, the system will still run just fine by itself without any modification. It even adjusted to the 24# injectors with no problem other than long term fuel trim being trimmed back by almost 20%. If you want additional tuneability, then the SAFC or the eManage are low cost additions. I love being able to play with the AF maps on my GReddy and swap out injectors and MAF's of different types at will. Being able to add a few milliseconds to the injector pulse width at any rpm and throttle position is really nice too. The GReddy eManage also has a scaling factor so that you input the factory size injectors and then the new size injectors, and it computes the rescaling automatically. As a check, I monitored the long term fuel trim, and it is 0-3% when I use the GReddy.
BTW, I am still working on the ignition timing aspect of this GReddy module. I have been having some bumps along the way, but I have made progress. Eventually I will get it working and then I will be able to jack up the timing.

These are all points you may want to consider before busting your azz wiring in a new computer. We can all swear to the fact that you probably wont need to.

Of course, it would be nice for a comparison.

The stock 3L is rated at 200ft-lbs torque/200HP, both at the crank. My engine is making about 195 ft-lbs peak torque at the wheels right now as of my last dyno run, that is complete street trim (full exhaust). The stock motor without modifications (manifolds, etc) will undoubtedly make less power.
Another factor that you aren't considering, I am running essentially the same compression as a 3L motor because I intended originally to supercharge the motor, whereas DavidZ is running 11:1. That itself is about a 10 HP gain at least.
There are too many factors, but if you look at all the engine projects done to date, the best ones are with very good breathing characteristics on SVT equipment. I only know of three 3L engines that have broke 200 wHP, DavidZ, Shoshop, and myself.
To evaluate the breathing characteristics,take a look at the motors. The Shoshop opened the hell out of the intake system but used the stock 2.5 valves and SHM headers. DavidZ used 3L valves and MSDS headers.
I made 217 wHP without headers and without the higher compression, and I believe that this is a testament to the work that I did on the heads and intake system. I also believe that I will see big gains on the motor once the headers are installed.
After all that, I have to just tell you to think on all this information a little longer before you finalize your plans.

warmonger