|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
The 3.0L cylinders are siamesed with no water jackets running between them, unlike the 2.5L. What does this mean ... the hot spot in these engines will be between the cylinders and that will eventually lead to a crack if the heat build-up is enough. How much is too much to cause this hot spot to crack? That remains to be seen. If you want a 400+ car, I would stick with the 2.5L, bore it out to 2.8L, press in Darton sleeves and boost the hell out of it. However, since you are looking for a fast reliable car, I personally would run 10-12psi on a well built 3.0L and sustain a reliable 300-350hp, which has been done with no ill effects.
Last edited by fastcougar; 04/13/04 06:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
Quote:
the only thing you may have to do is get your engine reboned since the ross racing pistons are a 1mm overbore. They come with everything you need though.
 I wouldn't let anyone bone my engine.....
Quote:
If you want a 400+ car, I would stick with the 2.5L, bore it out to 2.8L, press in Darton sleeves and boost the hell out of it.
He's also kind of worried about money....I think this is steering him away from cheaper....
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
My car is running, but its not being driven. Its still up on jacks as of right now, trying to figure out the little bugs here and there. It sounds awesome though, ill tell ya that much! 
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
Originally posted by JonnySVT:
Quote:
the only thing you may have to do is get your engine reboned since the ross racing pistons are a 1mm overbore. They come with everything you need though.
I wouldn't let anyone bone my engine.....
Quote:
If you want a 400+ car, I would stick with the 2.5L, bore it out to 2.8L, press in Darton sleeves and boost the hell out of it.
He's also kind of worried about money....I think this is steering him away from cheaper....
Yeah, we all know that "Cheap" and "Fast" are mutually exclusive terms! Speed cost money ... how fast do you want to go?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
Quote:
Yeah, we all know that "Cheap" and "Fast" are mutually exclusive terms! Speed cost money ... how fast do you want to go?
While speed usually = money, it gets to a point in some situations, like this one, where you have to stop and ask how much more benefit will I get from extensive work (and much more money spent) to the 2.5 block over using a 3L. Cost wise, the 3L is the OBVIOUS choice and I don't think the benefits gained by extremely modifying a 2.5 would outweigh the 3L. The 3L is a win-win choice, and if you're that serious about pushing an insane amount of power out of a FWD 3,000 lb. car, then you're headed in the wrong direction. I think Qwk is just looking for a nice boost in power with reliability and a realistic budget in mind. After you rebuild that 2.5 with Darton sleeves, throw twin turbos on it.... 
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Retaining the 2.5L block means you keep the head drainage problem.
Also paying for all the machine work and sleeves and custom one-off parts is just insane. (Figure ~3-4 times the cost for a smaller displacement engine  )
I do not see the 3L block having "hot spots" on the cylinder walls either. Not with the casting process, material, and design.
If you want to go forged then I would run the 9:1 slugs (9.25-9.3 for you which is even better IMO!)
It sounds like your power goals are in the 400 range too so that is another big reason to get forged.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,336 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Retaining the 2.5L block means you keep the head drainage problem.
Also paying for all the machine work and sleeves and custom one-off parts is just insane. (Figure ~3-4 times the cost for a smaller displacement engine )
I do not see the 3L block having "hot spots" on the cylinder walls either. Not with the casting process, material, and design.
If you want to go forged then I would run the 9:1 slugs (9.25-9.3 for you which is even better IMO!)
It sounds like your power goals are in the 400 range too so that is another big reason to get forged.
OK, I will stand here and proclaim this post as the "I told you so" post when someone drops a ton of money into a 3.0L and pushes the boost up and cracks a block. Until then, I guess I'm just a quack 
I never said that the 2.8L was the cheap way to go. Why do you and other jump down my back on this issue? It's not like I am trying to convince anyone, I'm simply stating what has been done in the past and what is possible. I'm personally building up a 3.0L because I know that it will never see more than 350hp.
Perhaps Keyser would like to chime and explain why he decided to take the 2.5L over the 3.0L on his current project?
Last edited by fastcougar; 04/14/04 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
