Originally posted by warmonger:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I would not spend a dime building the 2.5L engine or anything with 2.5L heads. Period. (well late 2002MY the 2.5L changed)

Nobody can defend the use of a known engine failure waiting to happen much less paying to build something with it. Also trying to justify it is just plain ignorant. 'nuff said.



I Totally disagree.



Not surprising but still not defendable Tom.

I'd like to see someone try to defend choosing a known engine failing flaw (2.5L heads) over an option that does not have that flaw (3L heads). Exactly. There is no possible excuse you could dream up that would cover it. Period.

I don't care to hear anything relating to power production or I had my hybrid XX miles and it's still luckily running. It's still a ticking time bomb running the POS non-draining head design. You can not deny that fact and that's the entire point.

I had my 2.5L for 34k miles before it shelled due to the fatal head flaw. That was 34k miles of Russian roulette I was lucky enough to win. There was no way in hell I would have even considered rebuilding that flawed design. I can't fathom why others still do personally. There is no logic to it considering the known facts and a viable alternative that is even predominantly cheaper to build instead.

2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.