|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 26
New CEG\'er
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 26 |
David- I would check the smog laws before you start. I think in CA if your car doesn't have an engine that was originally offered in the production year it will not pass, even if it runs "cleaner". Just a thought. I would hate to see you waste your time, money, and car only to find out after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
If you find a tech that could tell you have a 3L Duratec instead of a 2.5L Duratec by simply glancing at it then you've just found Superman because he can see the larger pistons in the identical block.  
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
If you find a tech that could tell you have a 3L Duratec instead of a 2.5L Duratec by simply glancing at it then you've just found Superman because he can see the larger pistons in the identical block.
im sure i could tell!
just look for the little tab that needed to be ground off for the alternator to fit!
but then again, the tech isnt exactly looking for these things !
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Russell:
just look for the little tab that needed to be ground off for the alternator to fit!
...or just choose an engine year that doesn't have one to begin with.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by athos34:
David- I would check the smog laws before you start. I think in CA if your car doesn't have an engine that was originally offered in the production year it will not pass, even if it runs "cleaner". Just a thought. I would hate to see you waste your time, money, and car only to find out after the fact.
Like they are going to know.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,036
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,036 |
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by athos34:
David- I would check the smog laws before you start. I think in CA if your car doesn't have an engine that was originally offered in the production year it will not pass, even if it runs "cleaner". Just a thought. I would hate to see you waste your time, money, and car only to find out after the fact.
Like they are going to know.
They won't know. California law is something like this, if I remember correctly. The car will test as the newer of the two cars. If it's a 99 SVT Contour with a 2000 Taurus block, it will test as a 2000 Taurus. If it's a 2000 SVT Contour with a 99 Taurus block, it will test as a 2000 SVT Contour. But that's if you take the car to a referee station, and the referee says "okay". So, if we were Honda guys, and you stuck a '99 Integra Type "R" motor (from a US market car) in your '97 Civic base model, the Civic would test as a '99 ITR. It tests as the newer of the two cars because the argument is the newer car will have stricter standards. I believe that is the way Ca. would test it, assuming you wanted to do it the "legal" way.
But I'm sure if you just take the car in to test, as long as it looks stock to the tech, I'm sure he will never know it was a newer engine. All the techs look for is the necessary smog equipment, and nothing "illegal" such as a non-CARB approved air filter, headers, removeal of smog equipment, etc, etc.
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: Aug 2003
Posts: 26
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 26 |
I was only suggesting this because I had a problem like this happen. I recently inherited a Ranchero from my father. At one time he installed a 460 engine in it. When I brought it to CA and tried to register it, the smog referee would not pass it. He told me that the engine was not offered in the production year of the car. So instead of fighting it I gave it to a friend in TX.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 97
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 97 |
I haven't even had time to even yank off the manifold, but yeah it's that plastic stuff. So you say the returnless 2.5L LIM would be better for flow, but wouldn't the injector be asymmetrically positioned in the port? I've seen some pics of the plastic 3L IM and I noticed that the injector sits in the middle of the port. I wonder how it would affect it if any, since it would be aimed at one port.
Externally the 3L block looks the same guys, so I don't see how they would find out unless I said something.
The last official to look at it (which was a cop, and pulled me over for being guilty by association) was more mystified about this big hole in my engine bay. I had moved my battery in my trunk and he kept trying to say that I had removed some smog device from my car. Then he points to the big red 2ga amp wire and tries to say that I had disconnected my EGR. I was messing up my EGTs and polluting the air he says. Then I get a ticket for having a modified exhaust, I have Borla cat-back exhaust which is "50 state" legal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by David Z:
1. So you say the returnless 2.5L LIM would be better for flow,
2. but wouldn't the injector be asymmetrically positioned in the port?
I've seen some pics of the plastic 3L IM and I noticed that the injector sits in the middle of the port. I wonder how it would affect it if any, since it would be aimed at one port.
1. VERY Significantly!!! I could give you actual flow areas if you wanted.
2. True, but that makes zero difference in power production.
Also with some ingenious porting work you can easily get a bit of fuel to the secondary valve to keep it clean. That's all you really need anyway; something to keep that dirty pig clean!
Then keeping the dual runner manifolds will allow you to open up the heads a bit more (comparatively) for top end power and still retain great low range power thanks to just using the long runners. 
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,071
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,071 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
03 Escape oil pan
3M4Z-6675-BA
Comes with a new gasket and all new hardware for ~$75.
I'm assuming this oil pan will fit a 99 SVT? And is it worth it and good insurance?
Former - 98 CSVT E0 T-Red 4/4/97 #173 of 6535
Dear Santa
|
|
|
|
|
