|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066 |
Are they for real, has anyone purchased it and got these gains. They seem a bit off to me. [img] http://store1.yimg.com/I/pf_1626_1817697[/img] How do they accomplish this, I didn't even think it was possible? How can they put this up there? Any info? Justin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248 |
Not very clever those guys. If they were going to falsify dynos, they should have looked at the Duratec curve first. That engine is not a Duratec. WAY too much tourque. The S/C 2.5L or 3L makes that much tourque but makes alot more HP. They also forgot the dip at 3400RPMs when the secondaries open.
So to answer you, they are not for real.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) Stock SVT Duratec V6 with: Intake- K&N filter/75mm MAF meter Exhaust- MSDS Y-pipe/Bassani catback Durability-Ford "dual mode" damper, Mobil 1/K&N oil filter 179.2 FWHP at 6900 RPM
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066 |
This is what they say:
--------------------------------- Contour SVTDyno results from Superchips show a peak gain of 15 wheel HP while consistently averaging 10+ HP in the mid to top end! Torque is improved as well, up over stock throughout the entire RPM band, with peak gains at 4800RPMs.
First, power is developed by leaning the fuel mixture at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) which is excessively rich from the factory. Second, while the Contour is an SVT vehicle, it still suffers from tip-in retard, which causes the ignition timing to pull back (retard) and thus retard performance as the driver hits the throttle more aggressively. Basically, the greater the change in throttle, the greater the retard. Superchips really corrects this problem and adds back that ignition timing to really wake up the vehicle.
Third, the SVT has something called an IMRC, which is short for Intake Manifold Runner Control, that meters the amount of air flow and the velocity it travels in the intake manifold. Concept: at low engine RPMs the IMRC is fully closed, keeping airflow velocity high, while at low volume. As the RPMs increase, the IMRC suddently opens to allow for more air, but the velocity decreases, thus killing low/mid range torque. Solution: Superchips IMRC control which retunes the "when and how" the IMRC opens. In most cases the IMRC slams open at a certain RPM, we tune so that the IMRC starts opening at an earlier RPM & opens more slowly. Result: optimum velocity is maintained while allowing for additional low/mid range air flow. The torque curve is pure proof!
The engine rev limiter is raised about 250-300RPMs to allow for later shifting, and in most cases we disable the top speed limiter, just in case you ever hit it! --------------------------------------- Seems to make sense but, like you said the stock one doesn't look like a duratec curve?
I wish!
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,592
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,592 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon: Not very clever those guys. If they were going to falsify dynos, they should have looked at the Duratec curve first. That engine is not a Duratec. WAY too much tourque. The S/C 2.5L or 3L makes that much tourque but makes alot more HP. They also forgot the dip at 3400RPMs when the secondaries open.
So to answer you, they are not for real. Look again, It's measured in newton/meters. I don't know how that translates to ft/lbs though.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248 |
"Look again, It's measured in newton/meters. I don't know how that translates to ft/lbs though."
OK, did not see that. Still looks weird, tourque higher than HP but maybe with the conversion its OK?? Stock HP 148 (a record low for an SVT), at 6900 RPMs (too high for stock). No dip at 3400RPMs?? Still pretty fishy to me.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760) Stock SVT Duratec V6 with: Intake- K&N filter/75mm MAF meter Exhaust- MSDS Y-pipe/Bassani catback Durability-Ford "dual mode" damper, Mobil 1/K&N oil filter 179.2 FWHP at 6900 RPM
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066 |
Thanks I didn't see that. But still when I convert it the max torque = 209nm converted it is 154 ftlbs. That seems ok. But at 3300rpms its making 136 ftlbs of torque that seems high doesn't it. If it actually does do that to our low end, I would consider buying it. But it just seems kinda sketchy to me. And the HP just seems way low to be an svt. Don't SVT's produce more around 170-180 hp. Has anyone purchase one, or anyone had any dealings with them? By the way here is the conversion tool I used in case you want to do further conversions. Conversion Thanks for the help, Justin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066 |
Ditto Originally posted by Dan Nixon: "Look again, It's measured in newton/meters. I don't know how that translates to ft/lbs though."
OK, did not see that. Still looks weird, tourque higher than HP but maybe with the conversion its OK?? Stock HP 148 (a record low for an SVT), at 6900 RPMs (too high for stock). No dip at 3400RPMs?? Still pretty fishy to me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,066 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,447
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,447 |
Seee how easy it is to get numbers to look better than they are, At the wheels and SVT should be in the 160-165 range. Maybe the let the car get real hot, dynoed it, cooled it off pulled in the chip and dynoed again, I bet you would see that same result then. Heat hurts our motors, after 3 straight runs on the dyno i lost about 8hp.
2000 SVT Contour #1077/2150 MSDS Headers/B&M Shifter/H&R's/
1995 Contour SE V6 #????/Tons KnuProject, awaiting mass mods
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,037
Administrator
|
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,037 |
...we tune so that the IMRC starts opening at an earlier RPM & opens more slowly... "opens more slowly?" I didn't realize the IMRC used a stepper motor! It's either all open or all closed, right?
|
|
|
|
|