|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Wow what a let down IMO!
Hopefully the peak numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm anxiously waiting the dyno graphs. (edit - saw them  )
I've seen SC 2.5L's make more HP and almost as much TQ. (Po-Jay just made 271/204 & BStoneMega 274/204 both with very little other mods)
The 2.5L turbo'd cars crush it's overall power output.
You won't be pulling low 13's either IMO. My guess is 13.7 @ 103 Provided you can hook up of course.
(edit) Sorry to be such a downer. The car would still walk mine like it was parked. I guess I was just expecting a lot more considering the other FI'd cars out there.
Are you saying there is no difference between 204 TQ and 229?
Your right it is such a slow ass car to drive.. 
Why is peak HP so damn important? Do you realize the chassis barely handles this power output?
BTW we did tune back abour 25hp if that make any of you number crunchers feel better...geez..
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by bnoon:
Originally posted by fst4dr:
Dont do it! I just put my secondaries back in. Unless you plan on racing your car, its not worth it. Drivabilty is awful. There is absolutley nothing under 3K rpm's.
Then you're just doing it wrong. You have to tune the low end if your secondaries are gone. My dyno is smoother without the secondaries and can out torque the traction of 235/40/17's in first and second gear without man-handling the clutch. Nope, no torque here...
I have to jump in and remind all involved that this may be the case without SVT cams, but WITH them?
All the dyno's show that the stock duratech cams do equal to or better down low than the SVT's do; and that is WITHOUT all the xtrude hone, TB, exhaust and other stuff. Comparing stock cams to SVT cams with everything else equal, the SVT cams trade low-end for high-end. With the SVT cams you get a benefit with the secondaries in and no sacrifice to the top-end. Its a win win situation.
warmonger
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: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Kinger. I think what everyone is vocalizing is that they expected a SC 3L to hit 300 wHP because so many other people with 2.5L are hitting in the 270's with SC. I take it you are hitting 270 with the stock redline? That makes a huge difference!!! The 2.5L Turbo has basically set the benchmark or what people are comparing all other forced induction cars to. The fact that you are after a totally different end-goal will not register with some. I understand fully what you are after and commend you on the results you got. That said, don't be too unhappy that others were hoping you would carry the torch of 3L SC superiority. We'll have to depend on buckshot to do that!  You have to remember that a well tuned high compression NA 3L will pull 215 Ft-lbs of torque. Granted you beat that up but it is in the back of peoples minds. Anyway, have a blast with the car. 277 and 229 will put it in front of most every other cdw-27! warmonger
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: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Kinger.
I think what everyone is vocalizing is that they expected a SC 3L to hit 300 wHP because so many other people with 2.5L are hitting in the 270's with SC. I take it you are hitting 270 with the stock redline? That makes a huge difference!!!
The 2.5L Turbo has basically set the benchmark or what people are comparing all other forced induction cars to. The fact that you are after a totally different end-goal will not register with some. I understand fully what you are after and commend you on the results you got.
That said, don't be too unhappy that others were hoping you would carry the torch of 3L SC superiority. We'll have to depend on buckshot to do that! You have to remember that a well tuned high compression NA 3L will pull 215 Ft-lbs of torque. Granted you beat that up but it is in the back of peoples minds.
Anyway, have a blast with the car. 277 and 229 will put it in front of most every other cdw-27!
warmonger
277 is at 6800 rpm. Least you understand I WAS NOT AFTER PEAK HP NUMBERS and I didn't want to lead people on with the run of 302 FWHP because that is not how I do it, nor is running on a track with out the spare, or removing my subwoofer. I want to see the results that I have every day driving on 91 gas which is plentiful, listening to my sub, knowing I can fix a flat, not some numbers that are only attainable for a day, only to put all the stuff back in your car, then brag about the fantastic numbers.
Enough drama this set the stage for all other combos out there now we know how stock like 3L's respond to boost, and buckshot can follow through with a completly modded one, and you Tom can show us how strong the stock rods are with that turbo installed on your 3L. Great learning experience going on!!
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
Good work, Jesse. If you're not after peak numbers, that's fine with me. If you want to run your car at a safe level (and still have gobs and gobs more power than me  ) that's fine with me, too. Your peak numbers aren't the huge numbers people wanted to see, but for the mods and tweaks that you performed, your output is great! Enjoy!
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 368
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 368 |
Jesse hopefully my 3L, thanks to the ported and polished heads and larger 3L valves with 3/4 angle valve work in my 2.5 heads, (Which I like to ThankYou  for taking care of on your end), and a set of SVT Cams and a approx. 11:1 comp. ratio, upgraded bearings and all the many other good stuff I'll be able to reach or exceed those torque figures  ....I hope to see at least 210hp @wheels though I'd like to see more of course, just want to be more realistic and keep my hopes to the bare minimum. As some of you know with all the other mods I currently have that'll be swapped over to the 3L, it's very likely I may crush my expectations, just have to wait and see. I guess soon enough many will finally get to see the first dyno numbers to come out of HAWAII NEI!!! And I must greatly disagree w/any negative remarks about your numbers, I think there extremely good considering what you're working with and very doctile for street use which is basically your end goal anyway...Aloha
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by kinger:
1. Are you saying there is no difference between 204 TQ and 229?
2. Your right it is such a slow ass car to drive..
3. Why is peak HP so damn important?
4. Do you realize the chassis barely handles this power output?
5. BTW we did tune back abour 25hp if that make any of you number crunchers feel better...geez..
1. Not at all. There should be considering the 20% increase in displacement. I just expected more being as it's boosted.
2. I never said that. However expecting low 13's from a car making just a bit more overall power than cars running 14 flat is asking a lot.
I also stated it would walk my car and it's no slouch. (even though it's just a NA 2.5L   )
3. It's not. I specifically stated that in my post too.
However if you take a look at the comparison chart below you can see exactly what I mean.
These are based on overall power. NOT peak numbers!
You are crushed by the 2.5L turbo (no big surprise there) (-16%HP / -16%TQ)
You are only a bit better than a 2.5 S/C with the expected TQ advantage (+4% HP / +12.2% TQ)
The big surprise is vs SHOShop's 3L. Up to 5000rpm (-1.5%HP / +1.3%TQ) Above that it's no contest of course. (+10%HP / +12.4%TQ)
4. The chassis can't handle the stock SVT power in 1st gear or launching in almost any car. Nothing new there.
5. So you put the stock pulley back on to lower the boost to 9psi?
Your mod list states you are running the smaller 3.125" pulley. Am I missing something here?
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621
Redneck Troll
|
|
Redneck Troll
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
1. Not at all. There should be considering the 20% increase in displacement. I just expected more being as it's boosted.
2. I never said that. However expecting low 13's from a car making just a bit more overall power than cars running 14 flat is asking a lot.
I also stated it would walk my car and it's no slouch. (even though it's just a NA 2.5L )
3. It's not. I specifically stated that in my post too.
However if you take a look at the comparison chart below you can see exactly what I mean.
These are based on overall power. NOT peak numbers!
You are crushed by the 2.5L turbo (no big surprise there) (-16%HP / -16%TQ)
You are only a bit better than a 2.5 S/C with the expected TQ advantage (+4% HP / +12.2% TQ)
The big surprise is vs SHOShop's 3L. Up to 5000rpm (-1.5%HP / +1.3%TQ) Above that it's no contest of course. (+10%HP / +12.4%TQ)
4. The chassis can't handle the stock SVT power in 1st gear or launching in almost any car. Nothing new there.
5. So you put the stock pulley back on to lower the boost to 9psi?
Your mod list states you are running the smaller 3.125" pulley. Am I missing something here?
Demon, most of the people running higher numbers on a 2.5L, turbo or SC, are tuned to the MAX to obtain those numbers and trying every time to recreate those numbers for the street using racing gas mixed with 93 octane, or running some track only water injection device. Jesse's 3L is detuned to run 277 HP, down from just over 300 at the wheels. All of this on a very basic 3L with an SC bolted on. What is there to be disappointed about??? Nothing...
Sure there are several upgrades he could do to better support more HP from the combination, but not on a daily level of reliability. Jesse and I talked about several of these options at length, but what it all boils down to is a mild FI 3L will last longer than a wild FI 2.5L putting out the same power levels. The 3L comes in with extra TQ to boot.
The answer to question number 5 is simple... the 3L requires more CFM to reach the same amount of boost as a 2.5L. Smaller pullies spin the SC faster = more CFM at same boost levels. The stock pulley will only reach 6 psi or so on the 3L as learned by Buckshot last year.
http://www.bnmotorsports.com
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my CEG brothers. And you will know I am the Moderator when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
I think everyones expectations were way overestimated, the reality is that I started with a 200/200 flywheel engine and ended up with a 325/260 hp/tq engine from only SVT cams, TB, UIM, gutted precats, 2.5" exhaust, and the SC.
Bnoon is absoulty right I drive 500 miles a week, I do not want to run with the 302 FWHP mark because they heard a mild ping when you stab it at 2500 in 4th gear, this is tuned to aggressively, now in 5th at 2K you can stab it and no detonation, this is a VERY safe tune and that is what I wanted. With the reflashed EEC I have full adjustibility just like it came from Ford. All the FT%'s are at 0, and all parameters have full learning capability. The knock sensor and the ACT work together to measure boosted temps to pull or add timing. Basically I'm safe if I get bad gas I might hear a very mild ping under heavy loads instead of a BOOM. This is what I wanted.
The heads are a restriction that I knew about and did nothing because I was worried about exceeding that strength of the stock rods.
The point of this build was to illustrate how much power can be had for the most reasonable price, in order to go higher I would add rods, engine balancing, cryo treatments, bulldogg box, pistons, etc this is like $3000+ for what will probably be 40-50 hp more, worth it to me? No way.
Again this is a more reliable build for the same power and better TQ then a wild SC 2.5, and will repeat these numbers time and time again.
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,279
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,279 |
Its one badass daily driver..... Honestly if we were all looking to get serious power (and peak numbers) go buy a stang, new 03 Cobra with just a KB blower upgrade is putting down over 600+hp and tq numbers. Add in the fact they are running mid elevens. Not to shabby for $3k in bolt ons. (minus the amount you will get back by selling your stock blower, could be $1500 in bolt on  ) Nice job Kinger. Your info provides us all with good solid basis on what the 3L is capable of.
Previous Owner of 00 SVT Contour #1077/2150
95 Contour SE '01 3L
|
|
|
|
|
