|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by mikey boy:
kramit, who has problems with zetecs running fast times? last thing i heard it was other zetec owners that didnt believe the times. i can dig up the thread if you wish. and nice job with the name calling, first you say that it is a stupid thing to do then you do it. keep it up. 
i didn't call anyone a specific name  , and yes some (joe) zetecers had a problem with sleeper's time, but in this topic, there are duratec owners saying the 60' times are impossible  , and blackie as well as a few other duratecers have problems with zetecs being fast,,,, and i will keep it up, just for you. , by the way i think your car is one of the best looking pre98s.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,483
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,483 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by Sleeper:
100HP wet shot on a Duratec = 13.8's (on drag radials)
75HP dry shot on Zetec = 14.4's (on street tires)
BTW - It was an LX on street tires. Not even an SVT (Blazin da SVT boys yo! )
Also a 100 dry shot would not be very bright!
...and with the intakes setup the way they are a wet shot is not very efficient on the Duratec as well...
Last time the Contour 1/4 mile times page was up, it showed that the 13.8 belonged to a Duratec with drag radials. Ask fst4dr, he has the info. If I'm wrong fine, but I'm sure I'm not. And the SVT Duratec is not a stock Duratec, so lets not bring SVT engines into the comparison. The SVT Zetec puts down about the same HP as a non-SVT Duratec.
Frank McCoy aka Mod-deth aka Mid Life Crisis aka SVT Doood aka mcgainer is a SCAM ARTIST
Pre98 Zetec - Some Mods
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Sleeper:
1. And the SVT Duratec is not a stock Duratec,
so lets not bring SVT engines into the comparison.
2. The SVT Zetec puts down about the same HP as a non-SVT Duratec.
1. um.. Correct! 2. Correct again. However the heavier V6 MTX Contour is faster stock. ba dump bump. Heck some V6 MTX cougars are quite a bit faster stock! Thanks for the comparison for the Duratec. Why you may ask??? Much better powerband and a some more torque! Comparing peak power is NEVER a good comparison. Again thanks for the outstanding comparison.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
by the way i think your car is one of the best looking pre98s.
see how can you be so right with one thing and so wrong with another. it is crazy. thanks for the compliment by the way.
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,465
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,465 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Originally posted by mikey boy:
kramit, who has problems with zetecs running fast times? last thing i heard it was other zetec owners that didnt believe the times. i can dig up the thread if you wish. and nice job with the name calling, first you say that it is a stupid thing to do then you do it. keep it up.
i didn't call anyone a specific name , and yes some (joe) zetecers had a problem with sleeper's time, but in this topic, there are duratec owners saying the 60' times are impossible , and blackie as well as a few other duratecers have problems with zetecs being fast,,,, and i will keep it up, just for you. , by the way i think your car is one of the best looking pre98s.
my problem wiht a time of his had nothing to do with on the bottle runs and sleeper have showen me a more realistic time off the bottle. so mike and Kremit WTF are you talking about???
2003 Subaru WRX some mods
Even if you don't have the answer, you certainly have to admire the problem.
aka ZetecRacing
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
oh no.
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
i don't know what that no no is for mikey... joe i was just saying you were one of the people that had problems with sleeper's time, i know you it was the off the bottle times,etc... just mikey is trying to fight a battle for duratecers by bringing in irrelevant info... and demon,, i pretty sure (from what i here) svt focus runs almost as a svt duratec, so unless svt 'tour is nearly as slow as a stock duratec, then i'm pretty sure your statement about stock mtx duratec being faster is wrong.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
what point??? about zetec,money,etc.???
You said a NA Zetec could be built for less money than a Duratec and make more power. I'm assuming you mean just peak power, but... So I said prove it. Since you can build a 300HP (maybe more - 20-25% increase in head flow is huge!) 3L SVT Duratec for about $1500 on top of what you start with. (Cost of 3L block and BNM heads plus misc rebuild materials) Probably 260-270HP for a regular Duratec with no other mods! Heck folks with a straight 3L swap with only SVT cams made ~250HP That's under $1000 easily. So prove you rantings that the Zetec is cheaper to build and can make more power comparatively. Even if it's just peak since it will never touch the Duratec's powerband. Heck after all it's giving up either .5L or 1L. I definitely understand the disadvantage it's starting with. The old term no replacement for displacement came about for a good reason. ...AND LIKE I SAID TO BEGIN WITH... The Zetec is a good engine with great potential. Just don't talk out your ass.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
and demon,, i pretty sure (from what i here) svt focus runs almost as a svt duratec, so unless svt 'tour is nearly as slow as a stock duratec, then i'm pretty sure your statement about stock mtx duratec being faster is wrong.
Then you need your ears checked. SVT Focus is high 15's. Some mag's clocked it in the 16's I've seen them run well into the 16's at the crappy track here! Hell the wife's 2.4L ATX Cavalier runs 16 flat stock. High 15's with a few cheap mods. AND IT'S A SLUSHBOX!!! (though a damn good one)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
bringing in irrelevant info... and demon,, i pretty sure (from what i here) svt focus runs almost as a svt duratec, so unless svt 'tour is nearly as slow as a stock duratec, then i'm pretty sure your statement about stock mtx duratec being faster is wrong.
what was irrelevant? and there is no way that the focus svt is as fast as the svt contour. lay off the drugs.
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
