|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6
Junior Member
|
OP
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6 |
Does anyone know what the differences are between the early and late SVT 2.5's? I know about the returnless fuel system and the longer stroke/smaller bore of the 2000's but other than that are their any differences between them? The reason I ask is because i would like to put a built up 2.5 in my SVT but i dont know if I'm better of getting a motor form the same year car or if it doesnt matter? Any help would be nice, thanks
'95 Mustang GTS, 11.3 @ 119MPH
'00 CSVT, 15.3 @ 91MPH
3L In The Works!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,861
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,861 |
The 98 E0 and E1 are the same. The 99 has 5 more HP due to more agressive extrude honing of the intake. As you already know, the 2000 has slightly less displacement, but higher compression.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,152
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,152 |
Make me wish I had a 99 instead of a 98.... :rolleyes:
1998.5 T-RED SVT
18" Team Loco 142's W/ Dunlop Rubber
181.2hp@6900rpm/155tq@5000rpm
LOTS OF MODS OF EVERY KIND....
...Am I a guru yet??? No... not yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,562
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,562 |
Originally posted by SSR SVT 1:
the longer stroke/smaller bore of the 2000's Only smaller bore, stroke remains the same.
Brad Noon '99 SE MTX 3 point oh my God H.O. 179HP/178TQ BNMotorsports Floormats, powder coating, TB optimizing, Gutted cats, etc BNMotorsports is now the preferred distributor of Contour/SVT/Mystique Indiglo style gauges!!!bnmotorsports@msn.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329 |
Originally posted by bnoon:
Only smaller bore, stroke remains the same. All Duratec's have a 79.5mm Stroke 82.3mm bore pre 00 81.67mm bore 00 & on for SVT's 10.00 CR pre 00 10.25 CR for 00 Done via different pistons...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81 |
You fellows are incorrect about the change in displacment on the 2.5L.
All '99 and up 2.5 are actually 2.49L.
All '98 and earlier 2.5 are 2.54L.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,861
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,861 |
Ford's SVT Enthusiast magazine stated that the 2000 SVT had reduced the displacement to meet European standards. The same article says that the compression was raised from 10:1 to 10.25:1 to retain the 200 horsepower rating.
I have not seen any other publications about the change in displacement.
So the change in displacement was for the model year 2000 according to Ford. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329 |
Originally posted by Procyon:
You fellows are incorrect about the change in displacment on the 2.5L.
All '99 and up 2.5 are actually 2.49L.
All '98 and earlier 2.5 are 2.54L. That you are definitely going to have to prove. All factory service data says otherwise. I might buy they changed over during the end of the 99 production run (since it was very late in being finished due to the strike) (Cougars especially) Also the change to returnless happened late model year 99. IMO it's the same reason as above. I'd buy they changed both at the same time, but definitely NOT ALL 99'sThe 99 SVT's have the larger bore for certain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,899
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,899 |
Oh man, more arguing on this. It seems that we always have conflicting sources on this, but Ford says 195 for 1998, and 200 for 1999+. There was rumors of a 205hp rating for 2000, but was this ever confirmed?
Dan Parmelee
1999 Acura Integra SiR-G coupe
"I heard Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms"
"Word, bitch! Phantoms like a muhfuka"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 334
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 334 |
oh no.. not the 205 thing again. :rolleyes:
|
|
|
|
|
