Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Dyno and Drag Dyno with A'PEXi and Pro-m

Ok, I'm glad we're on the same track.

and darn, I reread that post and I thought, "holy shiit, who really cares". I also thought that I may be interpreting what you said improperly so I decided to dump it and get simpler.

Oh well.

warmonger

i was just saying that the gains from this on a "bolt on" engine are small as it is... trying to improve on this may result in a few more ponies... but is it worth it? i think the concentration is too much on the "throat" and not enough on the "lungs". i think the intake is pretty much maxed out... there is ALWAYS room for improvement, but how much?

and i only quoted your post because it was the last in the thread... sometimes i have a habit of doing that. meant to respond to all posts not just yours.

"I think that the MAF is being blamed unecessarily for restriction when it is above all the cylinder head valves that are the restriction."

Perhaps but I do not think so. The valves are 32mm. If you recall the technical paper on developing a 2.0L Duratec Touring car motor that was on the forum a few months back - they used 31mm valves or 33mm valves (got same power with each - about 231 HP crank). This was at 8000 RPM but it was with a 2L which can draw less air - at 7000 RPM the 2L made 200 crank HP. The SHO shop 3L makes 229 FWHP (about 270 crank HP) with stock 2.5L 32mm valves at 7000 RPM. So, I would say the 2.5L (would make power in between the 2L with 31mm valves and the 3L with 32mm valves or between 200 and 270 HP or 235 crank HP at 7000 RPM- about 195-200 FWHP.

OK, is this pretty rough but if anybody has better data, I would like to hear. I personally think other restrictions in the intake come in to play first : the butterfly valves (turbulance), the t.body (perhaps at above 180 HP), the MAF meter (turbulance), and probably what Terry said about the initial portion of the upper intake and the T split.