|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by RodneyBur:
did anyone ever post that response to the idea of putting the 3.0 inplace of the 2.5?
Nope. Because the 3L was available easily when people started modding these cars, and especially because the turbo wasn't.
He's right, turboing a 3L with moderate boost will kill that engine. But then turboing that engine.....
There is still some fun to be had there.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 344 |
Originally posted by Twisted6:
Funny FAST managed to get the new 4.0L V6 with iVCT to run without an ECU that had VCT controls on it. But what does a low-post count member like myself know about such things?
Please provide more info on this and/or link. The 4.0L SOHC V6 has never had VCT. Not for Explorer, Ranger, SportTrac or the new Mustang. A few prototypes engines were made w/ VCT internally at Ford but that's as far as it ever got. Now the 4.6L 3V V8 used in the new Mustang does have VCT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 240
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 240 |
Originally posted by procyon:
Originally posted by Twisted6:
Funny FAST managed to get the new 4.0L V6 with iVCT to run without an ECU that had VCT controls on it. But what does a low-post count member like myself know about such things?
Please provide more info on this and/or link. The 4.0L SOHC V6 has never had VCT. Not for Explorer, Ranger, SportTrac or the new Mustang. A few prototypes engines were made w/ VCT internally at Ford but that's as far as it ever got. Now the 4.6L 3V V8 used in the new Mustang does have VCT.
Correction: It was the new 3V 4.6 and I found the article here:
http://www.fuelairspark.com/ArticlesAboutUs/Details.asp?ID=1027707949
"The variable cam timing on the Three-Valve motor is controlled by a pulse-width modulated signal from the factory computer. While we can control this using the SCT software on a stock ECU (on a chassis dyno), our FAST management system did not offer this capability. We had been running the testing with the cams in the default position (no electronic signal to the solenoid), and though we could not alter the timing electronically, we could adjust it mechanically.
To illustrate power gains (and losses) offered by retarding the cam timing, we retarded the cams 1 tooth. Changing the cam timing 1 tooth on the cam sprocket was the equivalent of 8.5 degrees (42 tooth sprocket/360 degrees). As expected, retarding the cams increased the power output above 5,200 RPM (to a peak of 369 HP), but dropped the power below that point (as much as 37 lb-ft at 3,000 RPM). The key point to remember from this test is by using the variable cam timing, we can have all the torque offered by the advanced position as well as the power offered by the retarded position."
Driving the Caliber
Side project: The LT-5 Fiero is being born..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 123
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 123 |
Found some more info (and great pictures): Ford 3.5L Cyclone Info Having removed my MTX-75 once, the bolt pattern on the rear of the 3.5L looks very familiar:  Who will be the first to attempt a transplant of one of these into a Contique?! 
1996 Ford Contour SE (Mine): V-6 MTX/DMD/MSDS/K&N3530/Torsen/Spec-1/Split-Exhaust/Walbro/Syncromax..119K
2003 GMC Yukon XL SLT (Hers): 285HP/Stock..93K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
hmmm...its the same dimensions as the 3 liter,thats good news,i wonder if the tranny mounting holes are the same?
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Nice!
Look, similar SVT style oil/water cooler. Waterpump is moved, that could be a problem. THe bell housing mounting area is more rounded though.
Look at the rear mounted crank pickup sensor though. YUCK if that ever goes bad.
The basic block looks essentially the same design though. It might not mate to the transmission evenly, but it may go.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 375
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 375 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
The big question is what would it take to make the crank fit a 3.0 block.
Humm... stroker... lol
Is it just me, or does it look like the 3.5 is a one piece block design?
96 LX 3.0L MTX - Black/Tan
K&N; 12lb F/W & uprated clutch
2.5" Pipe; SVT bits; Mystery Mod; Pull-tie Mod;
UN-tuned Mod; 3rd Gear Synro-Crunch Mod
280K on the Shell, and 40ish on the Motor... 1/4 mile??
Yeah, it's a fun daily driver...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Just you.  Actually it looks very similar to the regular 3.0 duratec. It looks similar enough that I wonder if a 3L/2.5L head bolt pattern and galleries are the same? I could see a 3.5L ovalport with correct waterpump drive, high compression without the valve shrouding in the 2.5L being quite the monster. I wonder what the valve sizes are for that thing anyway?
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Just you.
Actually it looks very similar to the regular 3.0 duratec.
It looks similar enough that I wonder if a 3L/2.5L head bolt pattern and galleries are the same?
I could see a 3.5L ovalport with correct waterpump drive, high compression without the valve shrouding in the 2.5L being quite the monster.
I wonder what the valve sizes are for that thing anyway?
Who will be the first to try...?? 
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
