|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 79 |
Personally I would use your mustang as a goal. Don't stop on the tour untill it is as quick as the stang. Will it ever happen? Probably not(especially because it sounds like you have modded it pretty well.) This is what I do with my parents car. They have a 540 six speed. Will my tour ever be as quick as their car? Maybe, but not likely. Get the best of both worlds, speed and four doors.
Old - 95.5 SE with lot's of mods.
New - 98 Black SVT with few mods.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,296
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 5,296 |
emm... the reliability will only depends on how good the guy working on it. Afterall, it's just like rebuilding the 2.5 except using a 3.0 block, right? Originally posted by ancosta:
FWIW, I say play with the 5.0, as long as your daily driver is running A-OK. Also consider that the 3L conversion is still an immature mod. It sounds like a really hot swap, but I'll call it a reliable swap once some guys rack 20K+ up on a 3L with SVT heads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 669
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 669 |
Hey George, on those weekends you've got my Contour I get your Mustang to drive 
'99 SVT Contour
1298 of 2760
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,166
Moderator
|
|
Moderator
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,166 |
yup Originally posted by AirKnight: emm... the reliability will only depends on how good the guy working on it. Afterall, it's just like rebuilding the 2.5 except using a 3.0 block, right?
Originally posted by ancosta:
[qb]FWIW, I say play with the 5.0, as long as your daily driver is running A-OK. Also consider that the 3L conversion is still an immature mod. It sounds like a really hot swap, but I'll call it a reliable swap once some guys rack 20K+ up on a 3L with SVT heads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 142
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 142 |
jb svt, You've got a deal if you promise to drive the car real hard, break some things, and replace them with better stuff.  David Z, all I can say is that if I was single with no kids I'd be right behind you with my 'tour. The numbers your car is pulling is just what I'm looking for. Thanks,
George Hodge
2000 SVT Silver Frost 1188/2150
DMD
HPP Rear strut tower bar
SP Motorsports "22mm" sway bar
BAT European Handling Kit
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 770
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 770 |
Right but you are matching parts together that Ford did not intend on matching, at least they didn't build it. The compression ratio of a 3L with 2.5 heads is well over 11.5:1 from what I recall. That is a very high compression ratio for a car which is to rack up significant mileage, i.e. >60K. If it was 12:1 that would likely be not much different than what a blown 2.5 sees at boost. That is a load on the engine which exceeds production specifications, and that is precisely why I am curious to see how the engines hold up. I personally think they'll be fine, as the bottom end of the SVT engine (is the vanilla duratec different save for lower compression?) is rather well built. However, better someone else to verify that it will last! Of course they get kudos for being the one to pony up the labor and $ to give it a try... Originally posted by David Z: yup
Originally posted by AirKnight: [qb]emm... the reliability will only depends on how good the guy working on it. Afterall, it's just like rebuilding the 2.5 except using a 3.0 block, right? Originally posted by ancosta:
[qb]FWIW, I say play with the 5.0, as long as your daily driver is running A-OK. Also consider that the 3L conversion is still an immature mod. It sounds like a really hot swap, but I'll call it a reliable swap once some guys rack 20K+ up on a 3L with SVT heads. [/QB]
Andrew
99 SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,527
Administrator
|
|
Administrator
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,527 |
actually, from what I understand, ford did eventually plan on putting a 3L in the SVT. Had the tour line not been canceled the next SVT Contour would have been a 3L car (E2 ?????)
It's all about balance.
bcphillips@peoplepc.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329 |
Originally posted by ancosta:
Right but you are matching parts together that Ford did not intend on matching, at least they didn't build it. The compression ratio of a 3L with 2.5 heads is well over 11.5:1 from what I recall. CR is more like 11 to 1 (a much smaller jump from the 00's 10.25 to 1) David Z's is a bit higher do to some extra work he did. But he also has cams with more duration to help compensate (lucky stiff) The dynamic compression of an SVT (10:1) at 9psi is a bit over 16 to 1. That's a huge difference. If they were the same. The 3L extra displacement would make it stronger, but it's not. This is why even a 11:1 3L SVT makes 220HP and a 9psi S/C 2.5 SVT makes 250HP. So the compression ratios are not equal. The crack about matching parts together that Ford didn't do is just dead wrong. (besides ford has done it - just not in production) Besides, it's not like you are trying to put some big block heads on a small block or something outrageous. These engines are directly related in design and almost identical in dimensions. The slightly higher standard CR (even 11-11.5) will not make a major difference in engine longevity. Besides with a custom hand built (spec'd) motor your durability will most likely improve over stock. This is definitely why a 3L conversion is more reliable. You're not just forcing the stock block to make a ton more power. (pun intended) 
|
|
|
|
|
