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.