|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
My question: Stock 3L 200/200 hp/tq Final HP 320/260ish (safe tune) Improvement 120/60 HP/TQ _____________________________________________ SC 3L eliminator with roots blower & worked SVT heads: 290/260 Improvement 90/60 ______________________________________________ What was everyone expecting? 
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,036
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,036 |
Originally posted by bnoon:
Originally posted by David Z:
My car wasn't tuned, it made 240whp right out of the box. After I had put the car back together I was out of a job, so the car was put on the back burner. Thas why it used a completely stock fuel system and ecu. Other wise I would have tuned it and possibly would have been somewhere between 250-260whp.
IMHO those numbers look weak, you should crank that puppy up and see what it really can do!
I have saved emails or posts saying that you had an AFPR on your car David. I.E. not stock fuel system... I swear that you said you were tuned by Sho Shop's Vadim... Hummmmmm, I'm going to have to dig through some stuff... 
Also, they did crank that puppy up to know it's limits. 302HP and 239 TQ IIRC. 
As far as I remember, Vadim only strapped the car down to the dyno. Vadim never tuned the car, nor did David.
dion
98 SVT, 200 whp/190 lb. ft tq (tuned by ADC), 3.0, P&P heads w/2.5L valves, optimized TB, MSDS, SCA 2.5" catback, SHOshop UIM/LIM, underdrive pulley set, TD's, Koni/H&R, BAER/TCE, Progress, CF1 products
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,506
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,506 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
Originally posted by bnoon:
Roz, there has been no name calling, no unbacked statements made, nor any openly harmful threats made. Nobody needs to grow up here or heed any of their own advice. It's a technical argument going on here, nothing else. Demon didn't make any insulting statements in his opening remarks, just wrong ones. 
For one, knowing that Po Jay claims to mix racing gas in with high octane pump gas shows that he's avoiding a dangerous ping like the plague... because he's not on a safe tune like Jesse is.
Either that or he's a big Chicken!!! 
j/k
Roz. I see you respect DemonSVT, but Bnoon is right. AND, Demon can explain himself further if he sees the need. He's very good with words!  So are you at interpreting the mood; so it seems. I'm not critizing since its good to have someone mediate once in a while though it may not be necessary now. Just offering a hint. 
warmonger
I understand....its just that, because of my work i can stay on this site for 8 or 9 hours mon-fri because i work at a computer most of the day.
Well i see all the fighting an bickering and i guess i just got tired of it and wanted everyone to get a long. I realize now that i probable should ahve just keept my mouth shut and i am sorry for butting in....I don;t know i guess on this site, there is a fine line between "educational" bickering and just plain stupid people.....and for me, atleast, its hard to tell sometimes.
Again i apologize.....I want a Super Charger!!! 
I want a Super Charger!!!
I want a Super Charger!!!
I want a Super Charger!!!
I want a Super Charger!!!
I want a Super Charger!!!
I want a Super Charger!!!
Roz
EDIT..and so people an't say i did not admit it....I WAS WORNG...thank you...please continue with your lives.
Last edited by Roz 1999 SVT-C; 03/27/03 04:12 PM.
3.0 SVT hybrid...all the fixens...Track/Race ready very soon!!!!!! 20,000 + miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by kinger:
Stock 3L 200/200 hp/tq
Final HP 320/260ish (safe tune)
Improvement 120/60 HP/TQ
SVT 2.5L: 200/167 HP/TQ (already tuned for premium fuel vs the 3L's 200/200 tuned for 87! Think about that too!)
Final: 320/232 HP/TQ (stock chip tune)
Improvement: 120/65 HP/TQ
I just expected a larger gain from a larger engine. I never said your power output was bad just that "I" expected more based on previous data from the other combonations out there.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by kinger:
Stock 3L 200/200 hp/tq
Final HP 320/260ish (safe tune)
Improvement 120/60 HP/TQ
SVT 2.5L: 200/167 HP/TQ (already tuned for premium fuel vs the 3L's 200/200 tuned for 87! Think about that too!)
Final: 320/232 HP/TQ (stock chip tune)
Improvement: 120/65 HP/TQ
I just expected a larger gain from a larger engine. I never said your power output was bad just that "I" expected more based on previous data from the other combonations out there.
Assuming your "FINAL" numbers are a SC 2.5 then the SVT starts at 200 hp, so does the 3L.
A SVT gains 60-65 TQ so does a 3L.
My point being these are exactly the numbers that SHOULD be expected. Its illogical to expect otherwise.
Buckshot will give you the numbers you want because we uncorked the hell out of his heads, which is the limiting factor on this set up but which was intentional because I was leary of rod strength. On a agressive tune like Brad said we had 302 which would have been safe provided I had at least 92 all the time, but with no IC, lack of 92, why risk it.
I offer PnP Heads for all durtec's details at PnPheads.com or jesse@pnpheads.com for details.
|
|
|
|
|
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. Assuming your "FINAL" numbers are a SC 2.5 then the SVT starts at 200 hp, so does the 3L.
2. My point being these are exactly the numbers that SHOULD be expected. Its illogical to expect otherwise.
Buckshot will give you the numbers you want because we uncorked the hell out of his heads, which is the limiting factor on this set up but which was intentional because I was leary of rod strength. On a agressive tune like Brad said we had 302 which would have been safe provided I had at least 92 all the time, but with no IC, lack of 92, why risk it.
1. However you have to consider the numbers you are using are for a 10:1 3L "de-tuned" for fuel economy and to run on 87 octane fuel. I would expect the numbers to be ~210-215HP/TQ if it were tuned for premium.
Then that comparison would show the gains noticably lower then a comparable 2.5L
2. How do you come by that "logic"?
If X x Y = Z then would not X x 1.2Y = more than Z
X = S/C, Y = Displacement, & Z = Power gained
I used displacement instead of "original" power numbers because of #1 which makes the original numbers a moot point.
This is an awful lot of "arguing" over something that is so cut and dry. Numbers are numbers.
I understand you tamed the tuning down. I understand why. However those are the numbers you original gave us to base our responses on and I did so accordingly.
I still think the numbers are very respectable and I have mentioned the curves look great so it's obvious it was tuned well.
However when you look at a graph like this I think anyone could understand why IMO it seems to be maing less power than I think it should.
Also it's a perfect respresentation of the fact the 3L HP curve is about within dyno deviation for 2 different runs (I.E. the HP curve could be from either size engine!)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,454
Learned patience the hard way
|
|
Learned patience the hard way
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,454 |
OK, I'll chime in again. The major restrictor plate here is the heads. I think if we were doing a true comparison of this engine on a stock block motor we should be comparing Jesse's base numbers to the stock 2.5 and not the SVT 2.5 due to the flow characteristics. On my engine I think we should be comparing the SVT characteristics and stats more closely and then I think Demon should see the expected gains realized.
Also for someone who mentioned Bob King's car, he was running the smallest puley and it was tuned for total power when it was putting down the 290. He kept messing up the cross shaft and had to go back to a larger pulley after that IIRC.
Rick
Owner of 00 #1611 Silver (Totalled) 98.5 T-Red SVT #6180
Buckshot77@msn.com
Misc 3L parts for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Buckshot77:
I think if we were doing a true comparison of this engine on a stock block motor we should be comparing Jesse's base numbers to the stock 2.5 and not the SVT 2.5 due to the flow characteristics.
I strongly disagree.
Jesse's engine: 10 to 1, SVT cams, 3L heads & valves!, All SVT bolt-ons.
If anything it flows better then an SVT with the larger valves and 3L heads. Especially for an FI'd engine. The port sizes alone are 3-4mm larger at the valves.
IIRC did not Jiako (sp???) dyno around 195/185 with a basic, straight 3L swap with just SVT cams (240/205 at the crank!) STOCK PCM! NO TUNING!
Now use that for an improvement comparison... (80HP/55TQ)
I thought IMO I was looking good before and you folks keep helping my cause.
Who's next...
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:
IIRC did not Jiako (sp???) dyno around 195/185 with a basic, straight 3L swap with just SVT cams (240/205 at the crank!) STOCK PCM! NO TUNING!
Jaiko's doesn't count as basic. SVT intake parts too, which required adapter plates and gobs of port work to mate to his oval port 3L heads.
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."
|
|
|
|
|
